Debates of 9 Feb 2021

MR SPEAKER
PRAYERS 4:51 p.m.
VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT 4:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker 4:51 p.m.
Hon Members, in accordance with Standing Order 53(2), I am going to vary the Order of Business and so, we will not take the item numbered 2 now. We will deal with the correction of Votes and Proceedings and the Official Report.
Hon Members, correction of the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 5th February, 2021.
Page 1, 2 … 6 --
Dr Kwamena Minta Nyarku 4:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, at item numbered 64 on page 6, I was present before we left for Ada but my name has been captured as absent.
Mr Speaker 4:51 p.m.
Table Office to take note.
Page 7, 8, 9 --
Mr Alhassan Tampuli Sulemana 4:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, the correct spelling of my name is captured at item numbered 165 on page 4.
Mr Speaker 4:51 p.m.
Hon Member, we are at page 9.
Mr Alhassan T. Sulemana 4:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, that is so. I am just pointing out that the correct spelling of my name is actually captured at item numbered 165 and not what is at page 9, item numbered 12.
Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa 4:51 p.m.
Mr Speaker, in that same regard, item numbered 20 at page 9 should be Hon Cassiel Ato Baah Forson; Baah is omitted. Also, in that same Table, item numbered 23 should be rather captured as Hon Dorcas Toffey. If this could be corrected accordingly?
Mr Speaker, I thought that at paragraph 11 on that same page, the rendition would have been more appropriately captured if in the third line, it reads: “membership of the Standing Orders Committee in accordance with Standing Order 157(1)” as has been the tradition of the House.
So, if it can be captured more accurately along those lines, it would be helpful.
Mr Speaker 5:01 p.m.
Table Office to take note.
Page 10.
Hon Members, in the absence of any further corrections, the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 5th February, 2021 is adopted as the true record of proceedings.
Hon Members, I do not have any Official Report with me. We would
COMMUNICATION FROM THE 5:01 p.m.
PRESIDENT 5:01 p.m.
Dr Matthew O. Prempeh 5:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I rise to exercise your mind. With the consultation that you have just called for, how is it being formalised in our work here? Will a Report be brought here for us to adopt and same communicated? How has it been done previously in line with misgivings that have been stated publicly about this consultative process?
Mr Speaker 5:01 p.m.
Any other contribution?
Hon Minority Leader?
Mr Haruna Iddrisu 5:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, as you have rightly advised, I have no intention to go into article 89 again, but as a student of interpretation, we are to construe instruments or clauses as a whole to bring appreciation. The President earlier appointed 11 persons under article 89(2) (d) of the 1992 Constitution, but what he is now
doing is to consult Parliament and that is provided in article 89(2). Mr Speaker, with your indulgence I beg to quote:
“The Council of State shall consist of --
(a) the following persons appointed by the President in consultation with Parliament -- “
Mr Speaker, I believe that the practice in the past, as I know, is that, the Hon Leaders would advise you and then you would communicate to the President. What we need to appreciate as a House is that these are ex-officio members. For instance, for former Chief Justices, we have Her Ladyship Georgina Wood and Her Ladyship Sophia Akuffo.
It is for us to think through -- and perhaps we should commend the previous Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Ms Gloria Akuffo, because she came to the House and sponsored the first ever Bill on the Council of State which would now be a guide.
Again, taking the Inspector General of Police, aside Nana Owusu-Nsiah, we have had other former IGPs. What role would they
play relative to this? With regards to Chief of Defence Staff, one just exited and we have had Lt Gen. J. B. Danquah served in that role.
Mr Speaker, I believe that Hon Members can go through their Leadership with their thoughts but this is what the President has communicated and the House would accordingly share -- Mr Speaker, by our practices and procedure, what does consultation mean? Mr Speaker, you have done what is needful by reading the Communication to Hon Members and we would advise you within the understanding of article 89 of the 1992 Constitution.
Mr Speaker, so what Hon Prempeh has related to may be in future, but as I said, there is now a dedicated Council of State Act and we have to work within the meaning of article 89(1). I am sure the Hon Leaders would further confer with you subject to any input or advice that any Hon Member may want to pass through their Leadership.
Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker 5:01 p.m.
Hon Majority Leader?
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu 5:01 p.m.
Mr Speaker, I think that this is really a novel development. On the face of the
provision of the Constitution as you have read to us and as the President has also applied himself to, the appointment by the President in respect of the persons listed under article 89(2) (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) should be done in consultation with Parliament. Mr Speaker, but I know for a fact that no President has applied themselves to this.
There is an emerging practice and convention that the President does so and I do not know whether they communicate to the Rt Hon Speakers behind the curtains? What I recollected is that, four years ago, on account of this, I raised this matter with the then Rt Hon Speaker who then said that on the face of it, the Presidents are required to consult Parliament but they have never done so and he said to me that if it is not broken then do not fix it. So, we left it at that but I think that if we have to conform then we have to also develop the process of consultation; how it should be done so that we formalise the process.
Mr Speaker, beyond that, I think there is another matter that we should also apply ourselves to and that relates to article 89(1) (d) of the 1992 Constitution where the President is required to appoint 11 other members to serve on the Council of State. Mr Speaker, to all intent and purpose, the number 11 is quoted to reflect the
Mr Speaker 5:11 p.m.
That is in respect of the Article 89(2) (d). I am not really against the issue raised by my colleague the Hon Member for Manhyia South. I think the Hon Minority Leader is also right to have raised it the previous time except there was no precedent that any president has done so before. But of course, repeating what is wrong 20 times or even 100 times, would still not make it right.
So let us look at the processes of formalising the consultation, and I believe going forward, we could not be wrong.
Mr Speaker, I thank you.
Hon Members, the President is enjoined by Article 89(2) (a) (i), (ii) and (iii) to consult with Parliament. The Article did not tell us how the consultation should be done, either formal or informal. I do not have evidence as to how it was done before. What I know is that, the current President decided, maybe because of the prompting of the House to opt for formal consultation and has therefore put it into writing. And by our Standing Order 51, the communications to the House is usually through the Speaker. And so he has communicated to the House through me.
Hon Members, because this matter has been raised on the Floor, it has become a formal matter. Therefore, there was no option left for me to resort to any informal consultation. The President has opted for formal consultation, and I am not Parliament; you are. And so I am putting it before you formally and to get the consultation done formally. I just gave you two days because of the use of the word “expeditiously”
so that I could also communicate to the President in accordance with our Standing Order 52.
If anything at all, we are setting a precedent for others to follow in future. If you would want this to be captured in our Standing Orders, it could be done so that everybody would be guided as to how the consultation with Parliament should be processed. And so the President has done the right thing, and I think I have rightly put it before you. After the two days, I would be communicating on your behalf to the President. I believe this should suffice.
Yes, Hon Minister-nominee?
Dr Prempeh 5:11 p.m.
Designate.
Mr Speaker 5:11 p.m.
Is it “nominee” or “designate”? I said “nominee” and you said “designate”.
Dr Prempeh 5:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, “nominee”.
Mr Speaker, that was my point. Because we have not crossed that river but we are now asked to cross and because it has formally been raised on the Floor that the President has also formally communicated, in our response to the President, it can only be by a resolution by the House.
That is why I said that in two days when Leadership --
Mr Speaker 5:11 p.m.
No, no, no. I disagree with you.
Dr Prempeh 5:11 p.m.
Mr Speaker, if I could finish?
We are nominating people to one of the highest bodies of the land to counsel the President. We have not set up a formal process. The Standing Orders gives you the leeway to set up a system, and by that system, we have chosen to come to this House to inform Hon Members, giving us two days. The two days cannot just end with a discussion here when that consultation has been rightly done, we formally agree before you could communicate back to the President.
It cannot be that after two days, only Leadership would come to your office and you would communicate to the President. We have gone past that stage. That would have been an informal discussion with Parliament. But since it has come to the Floor, I doubt if we have any other way than to come back here for all of us to agree on the nominees for you to be able to do that writing.
Mr Speaker 5:11 p.m.
I disagree with your position.

Speaker, thank you very much. I think this matter is clear in the sense that the Constitution says “in consultation with Parliament”. However, unfor- tunately, we have not developed in our Standing Orders processes relating to how consultation is conducted. But the same Standing Orders says that in cases not provided for in these Orders, Mr Speaker shall make provisions as he deems fit.

This is because our Standing Orders do not make provision for how consultation should be conducted; by Standing Order 6, it is you, Mr Speaker, who would direct how consultation would be conducted.

So there is a proposal by the Hon Member for Manhyia South that he thinks that maybe what we should do is within the given period, to come by a Resolution since that is a decision of the House either accepting the nominations done by the President or not.

Mr Speaker, remember that consultations might not be binding. It might just be an expression of our opinion that it is okay for him to appoint those he is thinking of appointing or we think he should change one or two people or we do not even agree as to what he should do. Then he would take that to go and

finalise his decision and announce that having consulted Parliament, he has concluded that these are the people he wants to be members of the Council of State. This is because, it is not for us to approve or disapprove. He is only consulting us, and he is not gone by our decision.

Mr Speaker, so it is for you to decide how the consultation should be done, then in future, as a House, we would provide the procedure. Especially now that we are discussing the new Standing Orders, our attention is being drawn to situations where we are to be consulted, we would decide how the consultation should be conducted in our new Standing Orders.

But for now, there is nothing in our Standing Orders regarding how the consultation should be carried out, and there is nothing in the 1992 Constitution regarding how consul- tation should be carried out. The Standing Orders says “in matters not provided for, you, Mr Speaker, should decide how we should go about it.
Mr Speaker 5:21 a.m.
Hon Member, we are speaking the same language. I do not know why many of you would
want to take more time to dilate on this simple issue. Consultation remains consultation. That is all.
The Standing Orders is very clear, and I have taken the decision in accordance with the Standing Orders on how it should be done. I am seeking your views in connection with the consultation. When you talk about a decision, it would imply a vote, and that vote would be of no consequence. It is otiose.
And so consultation remains consultation. We do not need to resolve or decide. We need to suggest, propose or recommend, and the House cannot be taking a motion or decision on a recommendation.
So please, let us take it as it is. I give you two days. Usually, it used to be the Leaders.
Now, it formally comes to the whole House and within two days, whatever we get from the proposal from Hon Members, we would formally communicate that in accordance with Standing Order 52, to the President. That is simple and short. I am curtailing further discussions on this matter, so we would move to a more serious item.
rose
Mr Speaker 5:21 a.m.
Hon K. T. Hammond, is Mr Speaker out of order?
Mr Hammond 5:21 a.m.
How on earth can Mr Speaker be out of order? Absolutely not, but I just want to seek clarification on what you said which is completely in tandem with what I am thinking. I was just wondering, Mr Speaker and as you indicated, that is exactly what I was going to say. On the back of what he had said, I was going to reinforce that you said it right.
Now, what I am anxious about is that after the Leadership has done its consultation which I think must be deeper than information, then what happens? Would they come and tell you that they have consulted with us and then you would write a letter? That is what I would like to know.
Mr Speaker 5:21 a.m.
Yes, the message would be conveyed to H. E. the President in writing and signed by me as the Speaker of the Parliament of Ghana. That is why I kept on referring to Standing Order 52. It would be a communication from the House to the President. It reads:
“52. Communications from the House to --
Mr James Agalga 5:21 a.m.
Thank you Mr Speaker. I just want to seek your guidance on the true import of Standing Order 172 (2) which reads as follows:
“(2) It shall be the duty of the Committee to recommend to Parliament for approval or otherwise persons nominated by the President for appointment as Ministers of State, Deputy Ministers, Members of the Council of State, the Chief Justice and other Justices of the Supreme Court, and such other persons specified under the Constitution or under any other enactment.”
My emphasis is on “Members of the Council of State. When you read Article 89, together with Standing Order 172 (2), it seems to me that
the consultation process would entail a referral of whatever nomination is done by the President, to the Appointments Committee for vetting as in the case of Ministers, Deputy Ministers and the Chief Justice.
Mr Speaker, a certain category has been laid out in the Standing Orders, and the Council of State has been specifically mentioned. So, let us take a second look at the article in question and Standing Order 172 (2) and be guided accordingly.
Mr Afenyo-Markin 5:21 a.m.
Mr Speaker, with respect, my Hon Colleague Hon Agalga is right in his interpretation of the Standing Orders. However, the provision in the Constitution as he knows, supersedes those provisions in the Standing Orders. This is to the extent that the obligation, duty and mandate of the Appointments Committee is to approve, which is conditioned upon the nomination that you recommend for prior approval by this plenary.
This one talks about consultation and I am sure that we both know. We battled out at the Supreme Court on the meanings of “consultation” and “advice” on several appointments. So, I am saying that we cannot construe that to mean that there must be a
referral to the Appointments Committee. If it is there in the Standing Orders, then I beg to submit, Mr Speaker, that it is inconsistent with the provisions of Standing Order 89.
Mr Speaker 5:21 a.m.
Hon Members, this is not the first time this issue has cropped up in the House for discussion. It did some years ago and the sense of the House then is what has been articulated by the Hon Member for Effutu, that what is captured in Standing Order 172 (2) on the members of the Council of State was an error. Yes, the processes are very different, and so it is just because we delayed in the review of the Standing Orders that it still appears there.
So, yes, that is the legal position and I think that the right thing is being done. H. E. the President has formally communicated and we would also formally communicate to him which would just be our recommendations.
It could be a recommendation or it could be just the acceptance of those he has nominated and nothing further than that. So, let us end it here and then now deal with item numbered 2 on the Order Paper; formal communication by the Speaker.
FORMAL COMMUNICATION 5:21 a.m.
BY THE SPEAKER 5:21 a.m.
Mr Speaker 5:21 a.m.
Hon Members, as you would recall, at the last adjourned date, Friday, 5th February, 2021, the House, pursuant to the adoption of the Business Statement, decided that Parliament should Sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays until otherwise decided.
The House further decided that not more than one-third of Hon Members would attend Sittings of the House in the Chamber at any given time. These decisions were in furtherance of the directive of H. E. the President in his update numbered 23 on the COVID- 19 situation, on 31st January, 2021, announcing new measures to contain the pandemic.
Hon Members, having regard to the upsurge of the Coronavirus infection in the House, now reading 17 Members of Parliament (MP) and 151 staff and ancillary workers -- [Interruption] -- in the precincts of Parliament and the fact that the Appointments Committee is yet to commence consideration of H. E. the President's nominees, I have in consultation with Leadership, decided that the Sitting of the House be suspended for three weeks.
ADJOURNMENT 5:21 a.m.