Debates of 22 Feb 2022

Hon Members, item numbered 2 - Message from the President.

Formal Communication by the Rt. Hon Speaker

Hon Members, item numbered 3 - Formal Communication by the Speaker.
Formal Communication by the
Rt Hon Speaker

Hon Members, you elected me as the Rt Hon Speaker of the Parliament of Ghana on the 7th of January, 2021. By that act, I became the Rt Hon Speaker of the Eighth Parliament of the Fourth Republic of Ghana. I am the seventh Speaker of the Fourth Republic of Ghana. I know you all know the attributes of the number seven. As a Catholic, I would do everything legally, practically and humanly possible not to depart from those attributes. I know those of you in the light know the attributes but those in the darkness might not know.
Hon Members, I make this Statement to
address matters that are pertinent to the fashioning of our Parliament and lies at the core of what we do in this Chamber and by extension, this House. I have noted the slow pace of work that has unfortunately characterised the conduct of activities of parliamentary Committees and that has limited our functionality as a Parliament. It has become apparent that the problem of undue delay on Committee work appears to be plaguing several Committees of Parliament. I do not want to mention the names of the Committees because you all know them. This has led to a situation where some Bills and other matters referred to the various Committees have stalled and the Committees have not been able to provide Reports for consideration of the House.
Mr Frank Annoh-Dompreh — rose —

Hon Deputy Majority Whip, may you resume your seat — [Interruption] —
The famous aphorism that the work of Parliament is in its Committees cannot be overemphasised. This Statement is therefore aimed at providing guidance for the work of the various Parliamentary Committees, ensuring a streamlining of their activities all with the aim of ensuring that Committees deliver on their constitutionally-sanctioned mandate.
Hon Members, may I refer you to article 103 of the 1992 Constitution which deals with the Committees of Parliament. Amongst others, the Parliamentary Committees are expected to investigate and inquire into the activities and administration of Ministries and Departments as Parliament may determine.
The framers of our 1992 Constitution, mindful of the need to strengthen the Committees as a tool for parliamentary oversight, provided for the Committees to have the rights, privileges and powers of the High Court in relation to enforcing attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, the power to compel the production of documents and issuance of a commission or request to examine a relevant witness abroad.
Further, Order 156 of our Standing Orders provides that all Bills, Resolutions and such other matters within the jurisdiction of the various committees shall be referred to them - the Committees - for scrutiny and reporting.

Formal Communication by the Rt. Hon Speaker

While it is the duty of all Committees to

give the matters referred to them due and

sufficient consideration, such consideration

should not be at the expense of the delaying of

parliamentary work. We must be guided at all

times that our commitment to our democracy

means we are doing diligent work in a manner

that is efficient and timely.

Admittedly, the 1992 Constitution does

not provide a timeframe within which a

Committee must complete its work except in

instances of a Bill introduced by or on behalf

of the President. Under these circumstances,

article 106(14) of the 1992 Constitution

requires that such a Bill must not be delayed

for more than three months in any Committee

of Parliament. Three months!

For purposes of education of our audience

I quote article 106 (14) of the 1992

Constitution:

“106 (14) A bill introduced in Parliament by or on behalf of the President shall not

be delayed for more than three months in

any committee of Parliament.”

Our Standing Orders, however, provides a

period within which a Committee should have

completed its work for reporting to Parliament.

It is instructive to note that Order 212(1) of our

Standing Orders reads and I quote:

“212 (1) Every Committee to which a matter is referred shall report to the House

before the end of each Session of

Parliament. If a Committee finds itself

unable to complete any investigations,

enquiry or other matter referred to it

before the end of the Session it shall so

report to the House”.

Hon Members, you all know what I am

talking about: the number of referrals to

Committees. Since last year, the Session ended

in December 2021. We are in a new Session.

No Reports whatsoever have come to the

House. There is no reason given to us as to why

there is a delay for us to consider the referral

and what to do.

Hon Members, in light of the foregoing,

all parliamentary Committees are reminded

that they are required under law to provide a

report on a matter referred to them before the

expiry of a Session of the House, and same

must be complied with unless leave has been

sought and granted by the House.

The leadership of the Committees,

Committee Clerks and the leadership of the

House are tasked to ensure that the various

Committees comply with the reporting

timelines to facilitate the smooth conduct of

Business in the House.

Hon Members, I am aware of the load of

work on the Public Accounts Committee. I am prepared to urge the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation to increase the number of member- ship of the Public Accounts Committee. We would strategise to form Sub-Committees of the Public Accounts Committee and assign them the voluminous Reports that are before the Committee to work on and report to the Leadership of the Committee to finalise and submit to the House. Those Reports from the Auditor-General are very critical and crucial

Formal Communication by the Rt. Hon Speaker

for the sanity of our democracy. I have had an opportunity to dialogue with the Auditor- General and his team and they are ready to support us in this direction. They say their spirits are low because there are a lot of Reports they have submitted to us that have not been attended to. We must lift up that spirit by quickening our pace of consideration of those Reports and submit same to the House. I hope we are together.

I note also, the growing trend where

members of the various Committees sit in committee meetings, participate in the meeting and then come on to the floor of Parliament to raise new objections to the Committee's Report when same was not done at the Committee level. We have in this House the Bagbin's rule that when a member of a Committee raises an objection at the Committee level and does not succeed, it does not prevent the member from raising the same objection at the plenary whether you are even the Chair or Ranking Member but you must first raise it at the Committee level. You can disagree with the decision of the Committee and therefore you bring it to plenary for the whole House to consider the reason behind your objection to agree or disagree with you. That is what I did some years ago as Chairman of the Committee on Subsidiary Legislation, where on the Floor I objected to the Report of my Committee and it was upheld and ruled upon by the Hon Speaker. That is why it is called the Bagbin's rule.

That is permitted but if you do not raise it

at that Committee level, I do not think it would be proper for you to raise new ideas against the Committee Report that you have all agreed to.

Usually, when we say ‘consensus' or ‘unanimous', then you come to the Floor and raise new issues which are definitely not in accord with order in the House.

Hon Members, deliberations at the

Committee level are extremely crucial. When a

Bill, Paper or any other matter is committed or

referred to a Committee, the Bill itself is the

order of reference and the increase and

deliberations from the Committee must be

confined to the Bill and amendments relevant

to its subject matter.

In this vein, Hon Members of the

Committee are at liberty to raise their

objections to matters being considered at the

Committee level. This would mean that

members must attend the meetings of the

various Committees and make sure their

opinions are registered. The tendency to

register your displeasure on a matter on the

floor of Parliament when same could have been

done at the Committee stage, derails the work

of Parliament and may have the effect of

preventing other non-members of the

Committee from contributing to the Report.

Hon Members, let us all commit to the

structures put in place to allow this Legislative

Body execute its mandate. Hon Members of

Committees are to lead the debate and we have

to allow more room for Hon Members who are

non-Committee members to add to it and

enrich the Report and debate in the House.

By this Statement, I am also imploring the

Leadership of the House to work closely with

the leadership of the various Committees to

streamline their Reports. Again, Hon Members,

Formal Communication by the Rt. Hon Speaker

it is important to note that the minutes of

proceedings of the Committee are as important

as the Report of the Committee. Standing

Order 212(2) reads:

“The minutes of the proceedings of a Committee shall whenever possible be

brought up and laid on the Table of the

House with the report of the Committee

by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman or any

member of the Committee nominated by

the Committee”.

Hon Members, the Parliamentary Service

structure ensures that every Committee of

Parliament has a clerk to the Committee. The

clerks have a duty to record the minutes of the

proceedings and all proceedings, upon

consideration of any Report or Bill in the

Committee and upon every amendment

proposed to such Reports or Bills, together

with a note of any decision taken by the

Committee and the names of all members

voting therein.

Do you know why I am raising this point?

On a number of occasions, we have had

disagreements between Hon Members as to

what happened at the Committee level. If we

had minutes, they would have been laid

officially for us to cross-check to really know

what exactly took place at the Committee

deliberations but this is not being done.

The absence of Committee minutes at the

conclusion of deliberations of the Committee,

would no more be countenanced as this serves

as an obstruction to the work of Parliament.

When we obstruct the work of Parliament, it is

called; contempt of Parliament and the 1992

Constitution is very clear on that.

Hon Members, the Committee clerks must

be mindful of the timelines for reporting to

Parliament and take steps to provide the

minutes of the deliberations of the Committee

together with the Report of the Committee.

There are various cluster heads with respect to

the Committee groupings and the

Parliamentary Service is aware of that. These

cluster heads would be held directly

responsible for absence of minutes and same

would be treated as a dereliction of duty.

Clerks to the Committees of Parliament, you

have heard it; absence of minutes of

Committee meetings would be regarded as

dereliction of duty. Constitutional Instrument

(C. I) 118 is very clear as to what happens to

such an officer of Parliament.

I hope we would all strive to improve on

our work as a House. We need to ensure that

our culture of work, practice, procedure and

conventions work in tandem. I hope we take

these matters seriously to strengthen

Parliament as an equal Arm of Government

and to discharge our functions and duties

efficiently and effectively to achieve the vision

of a model Parliament for other Parliaments to

emulate.

Hon Members, with this, I would like to

thank you for your attention.

Hon Member, please - I am talking to you. That is not how to whisper on the floor of

the House. I was hearing what you were

saying. If I ask you what I have read, would

you be able to tell me? This is a House of order

and discipline. What is happening - as the one with the ultimate responsibility, I am not going

to tolerate it. Whatever any Hon Member says,

that Member would not be held responsible but

me. This is the time that this country needs

leadership, and leadership we will provide.

With this, we would go to item numbered

4 - Correction of Votes and Proceedings. We do not have any Official Report and so, we

would start with the Votes and Proceedings of

Friday, 18th February, 2022.

Votes and Proceedings and the

Official Report

Hon Members, page 1 … 8 —

Mr
Speaker, I was at work on Friday but I have
been marked absent on page 7, item numbered
10. May I seek your leave for the correction?

Hon Member that is at page
7, item numbered 10. Table Office, kindly take
note.
Page 8, 9, 10 … 16 —

Mr Speaker, on
page 16, the designations of the officials from
the Ministry of Youth and Sports have been
omitted at items numbered (xiii), (xiv) and (xv)
and this is inconsistent with our practice, and
as has been done for the officials captured
above.

The Table Office would do
the right thing. Please get further details of the
officers and correct same accordingly.
Page 17 … 20 —

Mr Speaker, item
numbered (viii) on page 20 should be corrected
to read ‘Mr Kwame Amponfi Jnr' and not “Mr Kwame Ampronfi Jnr”. Mr Speaker, I know him very well because we both served as
National Union of Ghana Students (NUGS)
executives and he was in charge of education
and democratisation. Also, his position at the
National Sports Authority has been omitted so
we have to correct item numbered (viii).

Table Office should kindly
effect the corrections.
Hon Members, in the absence of any
further corrections, the Votes and Proceedings
of Friday, 18th February, 2022 as corrected is
hereby adopted as the true record of
proceedings.
Hon Members, as stated earlier, there are
no copies of Official Reports for correction so
we would move to item numbered 5 — Statements.
I have admitted a number of Statements
and many others are still outstanding and we
are still getting many Statements on daily
basis.
Alhaji Mohammed-Mubarak Muntaka
— rose —

Hon Minority Chief Whip?

Mr Speaker, thank you.
Mr Speaker, I am concerned about moving
to item numbered 5 without commenting on
Question time. As you may know, with regard to
Standing Order 53, we needed to do Question
time before Statements time and fortunately,
the Business Statement for this week as
presented on Friday clearly stated that about
eight Questions had been scheduled for today
and to be answered by the Hon Minister for
Transport and the Hon Minister for Tourism,
Arts and Culture. However, these Questions
are missing on the Order Paper for today and
when I tried to know why this is so, the answer
was that the Hon Ministers had written to
Parliament that they could not be present.
Mr Speaker, if you take a look at the
letters, they were not even written by the Hon
Ministers but rather by their officers and the
simple statement in the letters are that the Hon
Ministers are unavoidably absent.
Mr Speaker, Parliament cannot be taken
for granted by these Hon Ministers because we
have programmed these activities and they are
informed in good time. Mr Speaker, when the
Questions are adopted by the Business
Committee, the Hon Ministers are written to
yet all they could tell us is that the Hon
Ministers are ‘unavoidably absent'?
Mr Speaker, with the greatest of respect
and with regards to article 103 of the 1992 Constitution, one of the main functions of this House is oversight, and one of the tools we use to ensure proper oversight is the Question time. So, if Hon Ministers can pick and choose when to be present in the House and give flimsy excuses not to be here to account for their
stewardship, then I believe that this House should take it very seriously. I do not think that they are being fair to Hon Colleagues who would want to ask these Questions as a check on the Ministry.
Mr Speaker, I would be grateful if you could get the Hon Ministers to be here within this week. I know that other days have been scheduled for other Hon Ministers but we would be grateful if we could adjust to get these Questions answered and probably as a punishment to these Hon Ministers who have failed to be here, we can spread their scheduled Questions throughout the week. In this way, instead of being present on just a day to answer the Questions, they may have to be here almost every day of the week to answer one or two of their Questions. Mr Speaker, this should serve as a punishment so that when a Question is scheduled again, they would make time to be here to answer them.
Mr Speaker, I would want to make an appeal that these Questions should not be rescheduled to next week but they should rather be spread throughout the week and Mr Speaker could make the necessary directive for the Hon Ministers to be present during the week to answer them.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.

Hon Majority Chief Whip?

Mr Speaker, I think my Hon Colleague has a point and it should not be the case that Hon Ministers would take this august House for granted. Mr Speaker, but it is not the case that the Hon Ministers are taking this House for granted because per our records, and in context, the two

Ministries that are concerned - as far as I know, and I am sure my Hon Colleague would bear me out, this is the first time that we have had such a correspondence where they have indicated that they are unavoidably absent.

Mr Speaker, the point that the letters were

not signed by them is a significant point the

Hon Member has made, but so long as those

letters are from the Ministry, then it is as

official as coming from the Hon Ministers. So,

it is not the case that the Hon Ministers are

picking and choosing and it is also not the case

that I am putting up a defence unduly for the

Hon Ministers, but the practice has been that in

instances where Hon Ministers are unable to

show up, to be fair they are expected to

communicate on time. Mr Speaker, the case

has been made that if they are not able to show

up on a particular day, the correspondence

should not come on that particular day. It

should be a day or two ahead and the Table

Office is here. I got the correspondence since

yesterday that the Hon Ministers are unable to

come. There is a bigger concern he is raising,

which is the availability of the Hon Ministers.

We can talk about that, but relative to these two

Hon Ministers, I am not sure they are popular

for continuously citing excuses and not being

able to come and attend upon this House.

So, Mr Speaker, I am in total agreement

with my Hon Colleague that Hon Ministers

have to take this House and its Business

seriously. But relative to these two Hon

Ministers, I think that we may have to be fair.

Looking at the history, they are not Hon

Ministers who have shown such attitude.

Probably, Mr Speaker, I also join hands

with him that we call on the Hon Ministers to

appear as soon as possible. But the latter part

of his call - to say that we should not reschedule them and it should be some form of

punitive measures to the Hon Ministers - I beg to differ. It is a human institution. The Hon

Minority Chief Whip sometimes delegates

some of his back benchers and some of his

middle benchers to sit for him when he had

difficulty. So, he should be a bit flexible with

the enforcement of the rules and also

appreciate the fact we are all humans in a

human institution. I want to emphasise the

point that nobody is condoning the attitude of

any Minister taking this House for granted.

Mr Speaker, I am totally in support,

except to say that on this occasion, we cannot

hang these two Hon Ministers because they

duly notified Parliament as they should.

Mr
Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity, and I
want to thank the Majority Chief Whip for the
intervention.
Mr Speaker, it is true that it works both
ways. Sometimes, Hon Ministers turn up and
some Hon Colleagues are also not available to
ask their Questions. What makes it difficult is
when Hon Members are not pre-advised as to
when the Hon Ministers would come. I was
given a copy of the letter from the Hon
Minister for Transport which was signed
yesterday. Parliament did not Sit yesterday, so
there was no way I could have access to that
letter. I turned up this morning hoping to ask
my Question and I was told that the Hon
Minister will not be around. The letter simply

says that the Question should be rescheduled.

To when? I think that “when” ought to be pre- advised so that Hon Members would make

themselves available. That is what leads to a

situation where the Minister turns up on

Thursday and the Hon Member is not available

to ask the Question and the Minister would say

he is here and the Hon Member is not in. We

just want it structured as you have always

wanted us to do, so that we can be more

efficient in the way we use our time.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for the

opportunity.

Mr Speaker, I
believe the Hon Minority Chief Whip, Alhaji
Muntaka, raised a significant issue which is
about fidelity to our Standing Orders. Once the
Business Committee adopts the Report, we
must walk the talk on what we have adopted.
Arguably, today, Tuesday, Mr Kwame
Gakpey, Dr Kwabena Donkor, Mr Bede
Ziedeng, Mr Vincent Oppong Asamoah, Mr
Kwame Governs Agbodza and Ms Betty
Mensah, Ms Helen Adjoa Ntoso, and Mr
Joseph Kwasi Mensah were all scheduled to
ask Questions of Ministers.
Mr Speaker, as indicated, Parliamentary
Questions give a good opportunity to elucidate
answers in the exercise of oversight. What we
expect the Hon Majority Chief Whip to do is to
give us assurance that he would schedule
accordingly while finding justifiable excuses if
he is truly in charge for the absence of the Hon
Ministers.
Mr Speaker, the second leg of what Alhaji
Muntaka raised is the authority of the persons
writing to Parliament. It should not just be any
ordinary officer of a Ministry taking a pen and
a paper to write that a Minister is indisposed.
Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders clothe you
with the mandate for the admissibility of
Questions. So, even for rescheduling, you are
the authority. They must demonstrate that
respect. We need an assurance from the Hon
Majority Chief Whip that these Tuesday
Questions would be scheduled tomorrow or
Friday. Nothing more. To indicate what he is
saying, we must take the work of Parliament
seriously.
Mr Speaker, our reputation out there is not
the best as you have observed, and we must be
seen living up to the task of wanting to serve
the best interest of Ghanaians who are affected
by many of the Questions that would have been
posed today. So, the Hon Majority Chief Whip
should assure us that he would get the Hon
Minister for Transport available to respond to
Questions. For the Hon Minister for Tourism,
Arts and Culture, we hardly seen him around
the Chamber.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Members, you are all
very conversant with the rules of the House and you know that notice to ask a Question is always filed at the Clerk's Office, and that is processed through the procedural Clerks to the Speaker for consideration. The Speaker, as the Hon Minority Leader stated, has the mandate to admit or not to admit the Question. After the Question has been admitted, either as an Urgent Question or a Normal Question, it is sent back to the Clerk. It is the Clerk that transmits the Question to the Hon Minister and the Hon Minister, by our rules, is to respond to

the Question within three weeks. For a good reason, which we all acknowledge or which we took judicial notice of, because these are notorious facts, we still do not have strong institutions or systems and sometimes, we are prepared to allow Hon Ministers to use more than three weeks to respond to the Questions. This is because the Hon Minister may need answers from units that may be located in districts that are outlandish and may not have the necessary logistics or facilities to respond quickly and transmit information to the Hon Ministers. So, we acknowledge that. But when after all that the Hon Ministers submit the Answers to Parliament and are put across to the Business Committee, programmed, and the Hon Ministers are informed, I do not think it is proper for them to wait until a day or two when the Question is to be asked to direct a Chief Director or Acting Chief Director to write to the Clerk to Parliament to say that the Hon Minister would be unavoidably absent. What does that mean?

Let us say that His Excellency the

President invites a Minister to appear in his Office on a certain day. The Minister writes by instructing his Chief Director that, “Your Excellency, I am unavoidably absent that day and I cannot appear; can you reschedule it?” Is it possible? If the Chief Justice invites a Minister to appear before him or the Supreme Court and the Minister waits until the last day, then they send a letter to the Chief Justice that they are unavoidably absent; so, he should reschedule the date. Is it possible?

We have bent back too much and that is

why Parliament is seen as one of the Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA), but not as an arm of Government. We are prepared to

accept realities, but we are not prepared to be treated with contempt. As for the letters being written by the Chief Director or Acting Chief Director, I have no problem with it, because he is writing to his colleague, the Clerk to Parliament. It is like writing to the Judicial Secretary of the Judiciary or writing to the Chief of Staff in the Office of the President. So, the bureaucrats can write, but no bureaucrat can write directly to the Speaker. This is a notice to everybody; bureaucrats do not write directly to the Speaker. They write directly to their colleague and it is processed. That is why in our Standing Orders, when we look at communication to the House and from the House, the rules are clear.

So please, we are being asked to

reschedule the Questions; to when? These

Questions were scheduled with the knowledge

of the Hon Ministers. There was a Business

Statement read on Friday with sufficient

notice. Now, we have been asked to reschedule

them. To what day? Tomorrow? Next year? I

think that is what the Majority Chief Whip

must address. We do not know what that

unavoidable absence means; he may be outside

the jurisdiction of this country, and we all

know the business of Ministers. They should

have given us sufficient indication to support

us to take a decision, but that is absent.

So, with the indulgence of Members, what

I can do is first, to send a strong word of

reprimand to the Ministers. Second, with your

indulgence, I would like to ask the Business

Committee to reschedule the Questions

because the Ministers would need notice. We

have the Answers already, but we are no longer

accept any letter any from any ministry just

saying that Minister will be unavoidably

absent. We should be given the reasons. We are

reasonable human beings. When we see that

the reason is cogent, we will do so. If there is

explosion in Appiatse, we expect the Minister

to rush there; we do not expect the Minister to

be in Parliament to answer Questions that day.

So, if that is indicated to us, we would

definitely accept that reason and reschedule the

Business. But what does “unavoidably absent” mean?

Please, Hon Majority Chief Whip and

Leadership should take note of it and concede

to it. You should send a strong word to the

Ministers. We do not only consider

Government Business; we have Parliamentary

business, private member's business, and we have a lot to generate for us to consider, but we

give priority to Government Business - parliaments all over the world. When we give

priority to Government Business and members

of Government fail to attend, we waste those

days.

So, kindly take note and convey the

necessary messages to the Ministers

concerned. I would end it here. The Business

Committee should reschedule the Questions

and let the Ministers appear to Answer those

Questions. Luckily, the Questions are not

admitted as Urgent Questions, so they can be

answered next week.

Hon Members, we would go to

Statements.

Yes, Hon Majority Chief Whip?

Mr Speaker,
I would seek your leave for us to vary the order
of Business to go on to page 10 of the Order
Paper and take a Private Member's Motion, which is item numbered 21.

Hon Members, I would
grant leave for us to vary the order of Business.
I thought some Statements which are quite
important will be taken. I would ask that some
time be created for them. I would also invite
the First Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
Hon Members, we will start with the item
numbered 21. These Private Member's Motions have been on the Order Paper since
last year. We have to get them over.
This Motion stands in names of the
Minority Leader, Hon Haruna Iddrisu, the
Minority Chief Whip, Hon Alhaji Mohammed-
Mubarak Muntaka, and the Hon Ranking
Member for the Finance Committee, Dr
Cassiel Ato Baah Forson. I would call on them,
and they would decide on who should lead in
moving the Motion.
PRIVATE MEMBER'S MOTION
Committee of Enquiry into Government's COVID-19 Expenditures since the
Outbreak in 2020

Mr Speaker, I beg
to move, that this honourable House constitutes
a bi-partisan parliamentary committee chaired
by a Member of the Minority Caucus to
enquire into the expenditures made by Ghana
Government in relation to COVID-19 since the
outbreak of the pandemic in 2020.

Mr Speaker, this Motion has become

necessary as a result of the fact that, one, in the

year 2020, the Government of the day called

upon us to approve for the purposes of

COVID-19 expenditure an amount of GH₵1.2 billion. In that expenditure, the Government

said that they wanted us as Parliament to

approve for their use for the purposes of the

Corona-Virus Alleviation Programme I an

amount of GH₵1.2 billion. That was what this august House was made to approve.

Mr Speaker, however, in the Mid-Year

Budget Review that was presented to us,

clearly, this Government spent an amount of

GH₵8,122,000,000.00. This means that out of the GH₵1.2 billion that was approved by all of us, the Government went ahead to spent

additional GH₵7 billion for the purposes of COVID-19 expenditures.

Mr Speaker, it would interest you to note

that even with the amount of GH₵1.2 billion that was approved for the Government to

spend, the Government needed to come back to

us as a Finance Committee and obviously, as a

House, to give us the expenditure breakdown

of the amount of GH₵1.2 billion that we approved. Though they spent an amount of

GH₵8.1 billion, the Government is yet to present a detailed expenditure returns to this

august House, and that is why I am of the view

that it is critical for this House to set up a

committee by inviting all sector Ministers who

were given the opportunity to spend an amount

for the purposes of COVID-19 expenditure.

Mr Speaker, my point is that we cannot —

Mr Afenyo-Markin — rose —

Hon Member, just a minute.
Hon Deputy Majority Leader, you are on
your feet.

Mr Speaker, with
respect, I rise to raise a preliminary legal
objection to the text and content of the Motion
before this House. I would want to say that this
Motion in the least is otiose, lacks merit and is
not founded on one of the tools available to an
Hon Member of Parliament —

Hon Deputy Majority
Leader, you should please allow the Motion to
be placed before the House, then you could
now raise your preliminary objection. What
you are doing is pre-mature ejaculation.
[Laughter.] When the House is now seized
with the Motion, before it could be seconded,
you can raise a preliminary objection, but as at
now, the House is not seized with the Motion.
So, you may hold your gun.

Mr Speaker, as you
may be well aware, we shall continue to learn
at your feet. Therefore, if I got your order
correctly, you said that the preliminary legal
objection can only be raised after the Hon
Member has moved his Motion, but before it is
seconded.
Mr Speaker, I agree with you, and I would
take a cue.

Thank you.

1.13 p.m. —

Yes, Hon Ato
Forson?

Mr Speaker, my point is that,
yes, Parliament approved some amount for the
purposes of COVID-19 expenditure. We
approved an amount of GH₵1.2 billion, but in the end, in the year 2020, an amount of
GH₵8.1 billion was spent. In the first half of the year 2021, an additional amount of
GH₵114 million was spent. However, in the second half of the year 2021, we do not have
the details as to how much has been spent for
purposes of COVID-19 expenditure.
Mr Speaker, it is for the same reason that
I am telling this House that the power of the
purse, the oversight on financial matters, is
with us, and that is why I am calling on this
House to be given the opportunity so that we
can have the chance to evaluate the amounts
that were spent on COVID-19.
Mr Speaker, today, we are talking about
the COVID-19 expenditure and Ghana is not a stand-alone. A number of countries have initiated probes into how much money was spent, and what it was used for. It is for the same reason that I am calling on you, Mr Speaker, to admit that this august House be
given an opportunity to investigate or probe the amount that was spent.
I believe that an amount of GH₵8.1 billion spent for the purposes of COVID-19 is a bit too much. The details as were given to us in the Mid-Year Review, page 100, tell us that, one, they spent an amount of GH₵1.55 billion on support to households.
Mr Speaker, again, they spent an amount of GH₵1.49 billion as health response for the purposes of supplies, equipment, and relief for health workers. Again, we were told that with health infrastructure alone, an amount of GH₵600 million was spent. In the same Budget Statement, we were told that an amount of GH₵875 million was spent on security operations, evacuation, and coordination. We were also told in the Budget Statement that an amount of GH₵3.6 billion was spent on other COVID-19 related expenditures including economic relief, stabilisation, and revitalisation.
Mr Speaker, finally, we were told that an amount of GH₵401 million was spent on COVID-19 complementary releases. In all, in the year 2020 alone, an amount of GH₵8.1 billion was spent, and that is why we Hon Members of this House believe that we cannot rely on the Minister responsible for Finance alone to account for the use of the COVID-19 expenditure. These expenditures were spent at the sectors; various Ministries spent this money. So, it is important for us to have a Committee that would be able to look at the expenditures for COVID-19.

Mr Afenyo-Markin — rose —

Hon Member,
could you allow us to hear from the seconder?

Mr Speaker, the
ruling of the Rt Hon Speaker was — [Interruption] — Mr Speaker, the Rt Hon Speaker, when I earlier raised a preliminary
objection, indicated that the timing was wrong,
and that I could only come in after the Hon
Member who moved the Motion was done, and
before the Motion was seconded. I was on my
feet - we should be honest with the facts.
Mr Speaker, for the avoidance of doubt, I
got on my feet again for clarification to know
from the Rt Hon Speaker whether it was the
case that he wanted the preliminary objection
to only be mounted before the secondment and
he said, ‘yes'. That was his ruling. So, this is the time for me to come in because that was the

Hon
Members, can I be guided by the Standing
Orders? What do the Standing Orders say? At
what point is the Motion before the House? I
would want to be addressed by the Leadership
on the Standing Orders, the rules.

Mr Speaker, let me say that the Rt Hon Speaker
never made such a ruling. He said he should
wait till the Motion is before the House. When
we come to our Standing Orders and, to be
precise Standing Order 81, with your
permission I read, it says:
“Unless otherwise provided in these Orders, every motion unless made at the
Second Reading or Consideration Stage
of a Bill, must be seconded, and if not
seconded shall not be debated or entered
in the Votes and Proceedings.”
Mr Speaker, therefore, until the matter is
seconded, we cannot debate it. That is what our
Standing Orders say, and it is very clear. So,
the Hon Member can either second the Motion
or allow someone else to do so, then when the
Motion is before the House, he can get the
opportunity to give whatever debate that he
may have. If we look at the admissibility of
motions, we have gone past that stage because
if a Member files a motion, it is the prerogative
of the Rt Hon Speaker to admit the motion or
not to do so. However, once the motion is
admitted, on the floor, if any Hon Member
wants to make any comments on it after it has
been moved, then it has to be seconded first,
which would qualify it to be before the House
for Members to have the opportunity to debate
it. Any other thing one would do before the
motion is seconded would be grossly out of
order, and I would be very grateful if the Hon
Speaker would be guided by Standing Order
81.
Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Yes, Hon
Deputy Majority Leader?

Mr Speaker, I shall
rely on the same provision, Standing Order 81,
and for the avoidance of doubt, repeat the

words and everything contained therein. It

says:

“Unless otherwise provided in these Orders, every motion unless made at the

Second Reading or Consideration Stage

of a Bill, must be seconded, and if not

seconded shall not be debated or entered

in the Votes and Proceedings.”

Mr Speaker, before the Motion is

seconded, it is our duty to determine its

propriety - [Interruption.] Yes. Mr Speaker, I am on my feet raising a preliminary objection

regarding the propriety of the Motion. This is

not new in this House. For the record, I did so,

and the Rt Hon Speaker ruled. The record can

be given out. The audio is there. Nobody

should pretend that the Rt Hon Speaker did not

rule that I can only come in after the Hon

Member is done with the Motion, but before it

is seconded.

Mr Speaker, the right time to raise the

preliminary objection to this Motion is now.

The Rt Hon Speaker ruled and he was clear. I

deliberately got up to ask him to clarify his

ruling, and he did. It is not an hour ago; it is

some few minutes ago. Mr Speaker, I insist,

that per the ruling of the Rt. Hon Speaker, this

is the right time for me to raise the objection. If

they want to challenge the ruling of the Rt Hon

Speaker, they know what to do.

Mr Speaker, probably,
some of our Hon Colleagues need to go back
for orientation on the Standing Orders of the
House. Mr Speaker, I make reference to
Standing Order 79 which talks about the steps
that a Motion needs to take before it can even
be admitted. In order not to bore you with all
the reading, I beg to quote Standing Order
79(4) which reads:
“(4) Every notice shall be submitted to Mr. Speaker who shall direct that it be
printed in its original terms or with such
amendments as he shall direct, or that it be
returned to the Member submitting it as
being inadmissible.
It is only the Rt Hon Speaker who can
determine whether a Motion should be
admitted or not. If the Hon Member wants
better education, he can start reading from
Standing Order 79(1), (2) and (3) for all the
processes. We have gone past the stage of the
admissibility of the Motion because the Rt Hon
Speaker has ordered it to be printed in the
Order Paper. Therefore, the issue of
admissibility is over because the Rt Hon
Speaker is the only one who determines that.
Where we are, it is for the Motion to be on the
Floor. As I read in Standing Order 81, a Motion
before the House has to be moved and
seconded. If an Hon Member has any other
thing to say about it, then he or she can come
out with it. At this stage, I believe that the
prerogative is yours and I would be very
grateful if you would use our Standing Orders
to pave way for us to continue.

Thank you, Mr
Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to
some of the issues raised.

Mr Speaker, it is by election that we are here and it is by election that we have a Speaker who is supposed to be like a judge. A couple of minutes ago, before you took the Chair, the Rt Hon Speaker of this House ruled that the Hon Deputy Majority Leader had come too quickly, and that it is when somebody is about to second the Motion that he should rise and - [Interruption] Please, all my life, I have been trading with my ears; I do not have a [Interruption] The whole of my life, it is only my ears that I use to trade, and I would want to tell you what happened here.

When a Motion is moved and one has an objection to its propriety - it did not talk about admissibility. Let us forget about that. If an Hon Member has a fundamental issue with the Motion, he can raise it after the Motion has been moved, but not when it has been seconded. When it is so seconded, then it becomes a matter for debate. The Hon Deputy Majority Leader is raising a fundamental issue that this Motion is stillborn, and that we cannot proceed with it. I do not see why we should not permit the Hon Leader to raise the fundamental issue. Then when the Speaker overrules it, that would be it. I do not think it is the proper way of doing Business in this House to say that the Hon Deputy Majority Leader should not raise the issue because it should be seconded and debated and whatever can be said be said about it.

Mr Speaker, permit the Hon Deputy Majority Leader to raise the preliminary objection, and if the Motion should fall flat, then, we do not have to debate it because there is a foundational issue he wants to bring for our consumption. It is very important we listen to him.

Mr Speaker, as far
as we are concerned, a Motion has been
admitted by the Rt Hon Speaker in accordance
with our Standing Orders, which Motion is for
the House to constitute “a bi-partisan parliamentary committee chaired by a Member
of the Minority Caucus to enquire into the
expenditures made by the Ghana Government
in relation to COVID-19 since the outbreak of
the pandemic in 2020”. Mr Speaker, pursuant to our Standing Orders, the Hon Ato Forson,
our Hon Ranking Member of the Finance
Committee, has moved the Motion. It is only
right that the Motion is seconded, and then a
full-blown debate would be accommodated on
it. After it, we can take a decision.
Mr Speaker, the 1992 Constitution itself is
premised on transparency and accountability.
What we seek is to shine the light on how funds
for COVID-19 were expended. If after the
Motion has been seconded, the Hon Deputy
Majority Leader has any objection, he is free to
state it. We have long past where he is. The
Motion has been admitted and moved; what is

We have an objection.

Objection to what?

The propriety of the
Motion.

The propriety of
which Motion? Is there a Motion when it is not
seconded? Mr Speaker, I will even need
evidence that a number of times, I, Haruna

Iddrisu, has been told by the Hon Majority

Leader to sit and wait until a Motion is

seconded. I would get in touch with the Clerks-

at-the-Table and the Hansard. We will give

you a copious report on that.

Mr Speaker, what are they afraid of? Is it

the probe into COVID-19 and its expenditure

when the World Bank gave Government over

US$1 billion? Mr Speaker, all that we are

asking for is a committee to probe this, so let

us proceed further. After the secondment of the

Motion, the Hon Deputy Majority Leader is

free to contribute to it, and even raise objection

that he does not support it, but he should be

assured that he cannot stop this Motion.

Mr Speaker, our
duty as Hon Members is to respect the Chair
and the rulings of the Chair however
unpalatable they may be. Less than 10 minutes
ago, the Rt Hon Speaker made a ruling on this
matter, and for the - [Interruption]. They will never keep quiet when an Hon Member from
this Side is speaking; they want to listen to
themselves.
Mr Speaker, Standing Orders 5 and 6
address my point on the decision of the Rt Hon
Speaker when it comes to the interpretation of
our rules. For the time being, the ruling of the
Rt Hon Speaker is that my preliminary
objection, as to the propriety of the Motion, can
only be mounted after the Motion has been
moved, but before same is seconded. That is
the position of the Rt Hon Speaker, and nothing
can be done otherwise. I proceed to raise my
preliminary objection as to the propriety of this
Motion.

Mr Speaker, this cannot be sacrificed. If

they are against Mr Speaker's ruling, they should file a Motion on notice to challenge

him. That is what he says; they cannot take

advantage of his absence to deliberately say

that is not what Mr Speaker said. It was the

reason I deliberately got on my feet again to

seek clarification and Mr Speaker affirmed that

I can only come before it is seconded. So, it is

not a matter of coming in under Standing Order

81; it is not a matter of waiting to debate, this

matter is not ripe for debate. Mr Speaker, I beg

to submit that the time to raise the preliminary

objection is now because that is the ruling of

Mr Speaker. And nothing more can be done; if

they want to challenge Mr Speaker, they

should file a Motion.

Hon
Members, I have heard enough. Practically, I
have not been told anything other than what is
in Order 81. In fact, what I heard Mr Speaker
say was that if the Motion is not seconded,
there would be nothing before the House. That
is what I heard Mr Speaker say. And so, wait
till it is seconded —
Hon Members, I have looked at Standing
Orders 79 and 81; the Motion has been
admitted by Mr Speaker; it was advertised and
now it is moved. When it is seconded, then, the
Hon Member who wishes to raise an objection
is entitled to raise all the legal arguments about
its validity or otherwise.
So, Hon Minority Chief Whip, you may
now —

Mr Afenyo-Markin — rose —

Yes, Hon
Member?

Mr Speaker, we
have integrity issues here — [Interruption] —

I recognise
the Deputy Majority Leader.

Mr Speaker, with
the greatest respect, we, in this House have our
integrity to protect. I would not attempt to say
that which Mr Speaker has not said. You may
have heard differently but Mr Speaker must
recognise the fact that he left the Chamber to
get into the Chair.
Mr Speaker, I pray you to let us call for
the records now. Mr Speaker never said that I
can only raise a preliminary objection after it
has been seconded. I would not, and I would
like to call for the record. Mr Speaker, with
respect, that was the ruling; let us play back.
That was why I got up again for the second
time and asked Mr Speaker that if he meant that
I can only come in before the Motion is
seconded? And he said yes! The records are
there, and I would not litigate it if I know I am
not on terraferma. I would not! That is the
ruling but Mr Speaker, if you are setting aside
Mr Speaker's ruling, I do not have a problem but for the record, his ruling was that I could
only come after he is done with his Motion but
before the Motion is seconded. Mr Speaker, let
us suspend Sitting and play back so that we
would be fair to ourselves because you,
yourself say this is what you heard; I am saying
something different and they are also saying
something different. Mr Speaker, 30 minutes' suspension to clear the record would not hurt.
Let us go back. Mr Speaker himself is not far
away from here; he himself can be called for
him to say what he said.

Thank you.
Hon Members, I asked the Leaders to
guide me on the rules. Now, there is
disagreement as to what Mr Speaker said. I said
what I heard; I never said you said, I said what
I heard. I may have heard wrongly; I was on
my way here but I would have wished that
somebody would point it out to me that there is
anything different from Standing Order 81,
which should guide the proceedings.
So, my ruling is that the Motion has been
admitted, and it is on the Order Paper. It has
been moved, and unless it is seconded, then it
is not a Motion. That is what our Standing
Orders say. And it is not even recorded as
happened in the House. And if it is seconded,
then, what are you responding to? This is
because the rule is that unless it is seconded,
which has not even happened so, what are you
responding to? My ruling is that, let it be
seconded, after that, the objection can come in.
I so rule.

Mr Speaker, I thank
you. I rise to second the Motion that this honourable House constitutes a bi-partisan parliamentary committee to be chaired by a Member of the Minority Caucus to enquire into the expenditures made by Ghana Government

in relation to COVID-19 since the outbreak of the pandemic in 2020.

Mr Speaker, why are we calling for this

thorough investigation? Mr Speaker, as you may recollect, and as the Mover of the Motion rightly stated, in 2020 when the pandemic hit our country, the Ministry of Finance took steps to come to this House to request this House to approve a number of Loans and Agreements to help Government deal with the pandemic. It has been over two years now and so many things have happened.

Mr Speaker, today, if you ask various

persons and individuals in Government how much money we have spent as a country over COVID-19, depending on who you are speaking to, you would get a different figure. If you look at the Mid-Year Review, 2021, you would have a table; Appendix 4B titled, Funding sources for the 2020 Budget following the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. And you have a series of sources that give you a total of GH¢19.3 billion as moneys that have been received.

Mr Speaker, when you ask how these

moneys were spent, it is scattered all over the Budget and sometimes, it is very difficult for anyone to be able to place his hand on what truly happened at which sector. I would just give few examples because it is our hope that this honourable House would set this Committee up, we would like to believe that the much details would come out when the investigation happens. For example, in the Mid-Year Review, the Ministry of Finance claimed to have spent about 16.8 billion. And this 16.8 billion was to support the Budget for

2021.

Mr Speaker, I quote from page 99 of the

Mid-Year Review; Appendix 4B: International

Monetary Fund (IMF) gave a total of 5.8

billion; African Development Bank (AfDF)

gave a total of US$405 million; European

Union (EU) gave US$504 million; Govern-

ment of Ghana (GoG) itself through Bonds also

raised about 10 billion. Of the 16.8 billion, if

we go to the expenditure framework of the

Ministry of Health, they could only account for

only about 600 million during the Budget

hearing. And when we asked whether they

knew, they said no. That was all they could

account for. That is all what they knew, and

that is all they could speak to of the 16.8

billion, they could only speak to 600 million.

Mr Speaker, now, when the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration

appeared before your Committee on Foreign

Affairs in this House, there was an expenditure

against COVID-19 of GH₵65,733,885 and when they were asked to account for it. The

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Regional

Integration said that they never spent it and it

was only placed in their budget in their name.

They do not know who spent it.

Mr Speaker, if you would recollect,

during the Budget presentation, this was one of

the issues that came up during the debate.

When you take the Ministry of Health, some of

the details that they gave during the Budget

presentation at the Committee were that you

would have an expenditure for nose masks at a

cost of GH₵107,703,850. The Ministry claims

that GH₵107,703,850 was spent on nose masks.

Mr Speaker, if you come to hand

sanitisers, it is indicated that they spent

GH₵254.8 million. You would ask whether we were bathing with the sanitisers. This

expenditure is against hand sanitisers in the

details of the budget of the Ministry of Health.

When it comes to tissue papers in managing

COVID-19, the Ministry of Health claims to

have spent GH¢197.6 million.

Mr Speaker, it can go on and on. One of

the interesting things is that the Ministry of

Health claims that to do conferences related to

COVID-19 alone, they spent GH₵32 million for meetings. This was at a time that all of us

were holding Zoom meetings and we all know

that there was no external travelling. Even

internally, not too many people were to come

together, yet the Ministry of Health claims to

have spent GH¢32 million on meetings alone.

Mr Speaker, if you look at the way the

expenditure is going in terms of the food that

was distributed and what have you, it is only

proper that this House, as the representatives of

the people and in line with the constitutional

provisions, to go into the details of these

expenditure to ascertain how these resources

were utilised. It is part of the problem that we

have today, that we spent close to over GH₵20 billion in managing COVID-19, yet when you

want the details of how these moneys were

spent, almost all the Ministries keep running

away from it.

Mr Speaker, we can only get this settled if

there is a committee. I know there would be

curiosity about why we want a member of the

Minority to Chair the Committee. It is simple.

This is about playing an oversight role on

Government and all of us in this House are very

much aware that over the years, when it comes

to oversight - all of us are guilty of it - we virtually leave it and relegate it to the Minority.

It is for that reason that we have said that the

Public Accounts Committee of this House

should be chaired by a Member of the

opposition.

It is in line with this that we are calling for

a Member of the Minority to chair this

Committee. Our suggestion is that it should be

a seven-member Committee with three

members from the Majority and four from the

Minority, so that this House would be able to

do its work diligently to hold Government

accountable to all the moneys that have been

approved for their expenditures.

Mr Speaker, without going into the very

fine details, I would want to urge this House

that we should remember that all these things

we keep doing whenever it comes to

accountability, we play the politics of National

Democratic Congress (NDC), New Patriotic

Party (NPP); we and them; you and us; you are

either with us or against us - If we do not stop this attitude — we can see where our country is moving. We need to salvage our country and

we need to do it together.

So Mr Speaker, I am calling, that this

House adopts and constitute this Committee, so

that we would be able to investigate this into

real details, so that at least, some lessons could

be learnt from how these moneys were spent.

This is because it was hurriedly spent and the

quantum is huge. With these comments, it is

my hope that Members would unanimously

support the formation of this Committee, so

that we can get these details. I therefore,

second this Motion ably moved by Hon Dr Ato

Forson, the Ranking Member for the Finance

Committee.

Thank you very much Mr Speaker.

Deputy Majority Leader (Mr Alexander

Afenyo-Markin): Mr Speaker, if you would

be pleased, I shall now proceed with my

preliminary objection to the propriety of the

Motion for you to rule on.

Mr Speaker, there is no doubt on my mind

that as Parliament, we have a duty by an

imperative of the Constitution to exercise

oversight. Again, the same Constitution has

provisions that specifically mandate some

institutions to do certain work. It is my

contention that per the argument of the

applicant in this House, all the issues he has

raised, giving rise to his prayer, falls squarely

under article 187 of the 1992 Constitution.

Mr Speaker, to the extent that those

matters he has raised, fall squarely under

article 187, I dare say and submit, that we are

not ceased with the jurisdiction to constitute

that Committee he seeks to ask us to do. What

the applicant tried telling us was that certain

approvals were made, public funds were spent

and during the Mid-Year Review, they saw

some over expenditure and certain figures they

are not comfortable with which do not add up.

Hon Alhaji Muntaka who seconded the

Motion also reiterated the same point. If these

are their concerns, I daresay, that an attempt to

immediately proceed on that path would

amount to usurping the powers of the Auditor-

General as contained under article 187 of the

1992 Constitution. For the avoidance of doubt,

I shall proceed to read article 187.

“(1) There shall be an Auditor-General of Ghana whose office shall be a public

office.

(2) The public accounts of Ghana and of all

public offices, including the courts, the

central and local government administra-

tions, of the Universities and public

institutions of like nature, of any public

corporation or other body or organisation

established by an Act of Parliament shall

be audited and reported on by the Auditor-

General.”

Mr Speaker, Dr Cassiel Ato Baah Forson,

while on his feet, argued that the funds were

not spent by one Ministry. These funds were

spent by Ministries and Agencies. Let me

proceed to clause 5 which reads:

“The Auditor-General shall, within six months after the end of the immediately

preceding financial year to which each of

the accounts mentioned in clause (2) of

this article relates, submit his report to

Parliament and shall, in that report, draw

attention to any irregularities in the

accounts audited and to any other matter

which in his opinion ought to be brought

to the notice of Parliament.”

Mr Speaker, the question is whether or not the

matters being raised by them for us to consider

have already been determined by the Auditor-

General. They are raising issues of

irregularities. To them, the accounts are not

regular and the expenditure do not add up but

the question is, are these concerns not

premature? Are we not taking away the

constitutional mandate of the Auditor-

General?

Mr Speaker, it is my submission, with the

greatest respect, that this invitation must not be

accepted by us.

Hon Forson is leading us into a certain

plateau of confusion; a place of nowhere. We

cannot entertain that. The Auditor-General has

this mandate to look at the account. At the risk

of being repetitive, I would read it once more.

“The Auditor-General shall, within six months after the end of the immediately

preceding financial year to which each of

the accounts mentioned in clause (2) of

this article relates, submit his report to

Parliament and shall, in that report, draw

attention to any irregularities…..”

Mr Speaker, is it the case that the

Government institutions have denied the

Auditor-General access to the records? Is it that

Government has refused to allow the Auditor-

General to do its work? Is it the case that the

Auditor-General has submitted any report on

the subject matter of which certain

irregularities have been raised? Even so, such

a report would go to the Public Accounts

Committee, chaired by the Minority through its

able Hon Deputy Minority Leader, Mr James

Klutse Avedzi. There is a Committee headed

by him — [Pause] —

Mr Speaker, there is nothing to hide. A

moment ago, he directed me to due process. He

said that we should move step by step. There is

a constitutional imperative with regard to this

Motion. They have alleged irregularities and

they want Parliament to constitute an Ad-hoc

Committee to do that which a constitutional

pillar is mandated to do. What they are inviting

us to do has never been the intendment of the

framers of the Constitution.

Two, granted without admitting that my

first ground of objection does not even find

favour with you and the House. The second

issue is the fact that we have a Select

Committee on Health who has a bona fide

responsibility to look into the expenditure and

activities of the various ministries. That is why

they are there to oversight. If the contention of

the applicant is that we want to deal with

various ministries, then the question is that

what have the various Committee leadership

been doing? Is there any document before them

of which Government agency has denied them

access?

Mr Speaker, the Committees have

approved the expenditure for 2022. We did

Committee hearing by consensus and they

were approved in the House. Where were they?

With the various issues that they are

contending if it is not for mischief then what

else?

Thirdly, the Hon Member for

Ajumako/Enyan/Essiam, Dr Cassiel Ato Forson

who is my very respected friend, knows that he

has some tools available at his disposal. Per

Standing Orders 66 and 67, he could file a

Question if he says there are some

irregularities. For the records, he has not asked

any Question with regard to COVID-19

expenditure and that is why I daresay that his

application is being mounted in bad faith. If he

believes that Agencies of Government have

misapplied or failed to properly account for,

why has he not filed a Question to specifically

aim at an Hon Minister that would give him the

required results?

Mr Speaker, I dare contend again that

until that tool is exhausted, this application in its form, shape and substance is in bad faith. It is only part of the partisan politicking and nothing more. It is not for the good of Ghanaians but aimed at confusing, misleading and creating certain impressions about this Government because they know that they could not promise Free SHS but this Government has promised and delivered it. They know that this Government, in terms of infrastructure, has done all it could to improve on the livelihood of Ghanaians and they know that there would be the 2024 Presidential and Parliamentary General Elections. This is political. They know the investment that the Government has made in the private sector which has given them heart attack and

headaches so they want to find a way to mislead Ghanaians.

Mr Speaker, this preliminary legal

objection must be ruled upon by you. You must uphold my submission and throw them out and dismiss it in limine so that they would be advised on the proper steps to take. If we allow them to even proceed any further, we would set a certain precedent that this House cannot contain in future. Do we want to render the work of our Select Committees otiose? Do we want to disable our own tools as Parliamentarians?

Do we want to go partisan on all issues of

national importance? Are we not concerned about the roads that the Government needs the E-Levy to fix so that all of us would be happy? Is that not what we want? Are we not concerned about the unemployment situation that the Government seeks to invest monies in the private sector for the young entrepreneurs to find work to do? They are interested in confusing Ghanaians and to create a certain impression that the work of the Auditor- General under article 187 which work is yet to be completed - and they want a Committee to be set up to investigate what?

Mr Speaker, having said all of these, I

submit that the Motion is inappropriate and it has not been properly mounted. The content of the Motion has been mounted in bad faith. The Motion, if considered by the House, would amount to undermine a constitutional authority given to the Auditor-General under article 187 and on that score alone, the Standing Orders of this House must give way to article 187.

Hon Minority
Leader?

Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for the
opportunity.
Mr Speaker, a preliminary objection has
been raised so even before I speak to the
Motion, I would want to refer to the text of the
Motion which reads:
“That this honourable House constitutes a bi-partisan parliamentary committee chaired
by a Member of the Minority Caucus to
enquire into the expenditures made by
Ghana Government in relation to COVID-
19 since the outbreak of the pandemic in
2020”.
Mr Speaker, the words are “to enquire''.
Mr Speaker, with respect, I would want to
refer to the very Constitution that my Hon
Colleague relied on and to refer to article 103
(3) of the 1992 Constitution which says:
“Committees of Parliament shall be charged with such functions, including the
investigation and inquiry into the
activities and administration of ministries
and departments as Parliament may
determine; and such investigation and
inquiries may extend to proposals for
legislation”.
Mr Speaker, nowhere in this Motion made
reference to the word “audit''. The wording for this Motion is clear. We should give words
their ordinary meaning. It is only when the
primary meaning of words leads to absurdity
that we can employ other words.

Mr Speaker, suffice it to add, I am coming

back to the Hon Deputy Majority Leader's own article he relied on, - article 187 - He says that this House should not proceed because of the

Auditor-General. Article 187(7) of the 1992

Constitution provides, with your permission:

“(7) In the performance of his functions under this Constitution or any other law

the Auditor-General —

(a) shall not be subject to the direction

or control of any other person or

authority;”

So, it is not for us to direct or control what

the Auditor-General ought to do. Even still

there, the Hon Member quoted article 187(5).

Let us proceed to article 187(5). With your

permission, it reads:

“The Auditor-General shall, within six months after the end of the immediately

preceding financial year to which each of

the accounts mentioned in clause(2) of

this article relates, submit his report to

Parliament…”

Mr Speaker, we are in 2022. The year

2020 has lapsed and therefore where is the

Report of the Auditor-General on COVID-19

related expenditure for the preceding year of

2021. [Uproar] — No, I said 2020.

Mr Speaker, he said within six months.

So, the year 2020 has lapsed and its preceding year would have been midyear of 2021. I have not come across any dedicated Report on COVID-19 expenditure by the Auditor- General.

Mr Speaker, the only way we can fight graft and corruption is to shine light on public expenditure, particularly, reckless and irresponsible expenditure. We are only asking for a full scale public enquiry into how COVID-19 resources were spent. We ask for

nothing more; we are asking for a public sitting where the citizens of Ghana would hear how moneys dedicated to COVID-19 were spent by the ruling Administration.

Is this what we are being told, that

technically we should not go there and that we should leave it to the Auditor-General?

Mr Speaker, I hold with me here the

Budget Statement of the Government of Ghana for the 2020 Financial Year. Paragraph 168,

page 47, this is what the Minister for Finance says and I beg to quote:

“This brings total COVID-19 related expenditure to GH₵2, 646,000, against a target of GH₵2,877,000 million.”

Yet, as we probed the expenditure of

Ministries, Departments and Agencies, we could not get this expenditure accounted for, the reason we are calling for an enquiry into how COVID-19 expenditure was made.

Whether it was used to procure PPEs or sanitisers or to facilitate zoom meetings. We have been told how much money was spent on

zoom and it is only Ghana which spent that

colossal sum of money for purposes of zoom meetings.

Mr Speaker, if you go to the expenditure

of this same Budget, it is accounted for and as was related by earlier speakers, one would be

at a loss why this House would not unanimously support an enquiry into COVID- 19 related expenditure. The Auditor-General would do his work anyway but as I said, he is not subject to our direction or control. I agree that he is an ally of Parliament. But the Hon

Member quoted article 187, so, given that 2020, we needed an Auditor-General's Report on it. The preceding period would have been midyear into 2021. We are almost going half year into 2022.

Mr Speaker, our donors are interested in how we spent the COVID-19 money. The World Bank representative in Ghana is reported to have said that some GH₵2.871 billion representing about US$435 million was spent on COVID-19. Where is the money?

How was it spent? We need to know. The World Bank also gave us two allocations of US$1 billion. In today's exchange rate, GH₵6.6 billion. So, as the Hon Minority Chief Whip related, even just the exchange rate regime is worth probing. Let us know; the

Government got moneys from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the African Development Bank (AfDB) all in hard foreign currency. A probe would reveal how much the Minister for Finance changed the AfDB money of US$405 million using the same exchange

rate regime he announced in the Budget Statement for our purposes so that we would know how much accrued from the exchange of

that money. The European Union wants us to

account for how we spent their money. As for Bank of Ghana and others, as he also related, even in raising bonds —

Mr Speaker, we have gone through a

pandemic of a crisis; we have not healed totally

from COVID-19. We are simply asking for a

seven-member committee chaired by the

Minority and they contribute members to it.

Mr Speaker, let me end by referring you

to the preamble of the 1992 Constitution. With

your permission it reads:

“IN EXERCISE of our natural and inalienable right to establish a framework

of government which shall secure for

ourselves and posterity the blessings of

liberty, equality of opportunity and prosperity;…

AND IN SOLEMN declaration and affir-

mation of our commitment to; Freedom,

Justice, Probity, and Accountability;”

Mr Speaker, we demand probity and account-

ability in all COVID-19 related expenditure in

order that the Ghanaian public —

Mr Speaker, already, Social Enterprise

Development Foundation, Ghana (SEND-

Ghana) and even today, the Ghana Integrity

Initiative (GII) is launching a report with

damning revelations. So, this House as the

representatives of the people which has the

power of oversight must be interested in how

the public money is spent and the value of that

expenditure.

Mr Speaker, I therefore would urge you

that my Hon Colleague's objection is misplaced and incompetent and therefore

should be dismissed.

Majority Leader/Leader of Government

Business (Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu): Mr

Speaker, there is a private member's Motion before us which reads:

“that this Honourable House constitutes a bi-partisan parliamentary committee chaired

by a Member of the Minority Caucus to

enquire into the expenditures made by the

Ghana Government in relation to COVID-

19 since the outbreak of the pandemic in

2020.

Mr Speaker, the Motion has been moved

and seconded and a preliminary objection has

been raised about the competence of the Motion. I

hear people trying to justify, subsequent to the

raising of the preliminary objection, the need

or the rationalisation for the Motion.

Hon Majority
Leader, a moment please —
Having regard to the state of the business
of the House, I direct that the House sits
outside the regular Sitting hours.
You may continue.

Mr Speaker, I
thought that where we are now, the issue would be for the Speaker to rule on the preliminary objection raised. Unfortunately, space has been

given to the rationalisation for the Motion that has been moved.

Mr Speaker, I believe that you need to rule

on the preliminary objection. But just for the

records, I think it is important that I relate to

some of the issues raised by my Hon Colleague

especially, the Hon Minority Leader.

Mr Speaker, he raised issues relating to

article 103 (1) and it reads:

“Parliament shall appoint standing committees and other committees as may

be necessary for the effective discharge of

its functions.

(2) The standing committees shall be

appointed at the first meeting of

Parliament after the election of the

Speaker and the Deputy Speakers.

(3) Committees of Parliament shall be

charged with such functions, including

the investigation and inquiry into the

activities and administration of ministries

and departments as Parliament may

determine; and such investigation and

inquiries may extend to proposals for

legislation.”

Mr Speaker, the issue that I would want to relate to, is the matter relating to the functions of the Committees that we establish. It should never be construed that the function of oversight is the preserve of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) - it is not. All the Committees have the responsibility to do that and so, if the rationalisation of this is that it should be chaired by an Hon Member of the

Minority Side because the PAC is so constructed; nothing could be so unfortunate an argument - all the Committees have that responsibility and not only the PAC.

So, for any Hon Member to suggest that

because of the construct of the PAC, this Committee — [Interruption] — That is what Hon Muntaka said and he should not ran away from it. He just said that because of the construct of the PAC, they should also be constructed on the line of the PAC and I am suggesting to him that all the Committees have that responsibility and that it is not only the

PAC.

Mr Speaker, having said that we are being

told that the COVID -19 related expenditure is spread in so many places of the Budget and also of the Supplementary Budget. What of that? Are they provided for, in the Budget? Yes. I heard the Hon Muntaka say that is not adequate. There is provision for it in the 2021 Budget.

Let everybody apprise himself or herself

with Appendix clause B of the 2021 Budget Statement. The expenditure is captured there, and in the Mid-Year Review as the Hon Member is owning up to, he should check Appendix 4 B and the expenditure is so provided.

Mr Speaker, so, what is the purpose of this

other than seeking mischief? Now, the Hon Member says that it is not up to date and not enough. So, I fail to see the rationalisation of this. Our Standing Orders provide —

Hon Majority Leader, hold on.

Yes, are you on a point of order?

Mr
Speaker, I just wish to draw the House's attention to the suggestion that we have some
of these provisions already captured in the
Budget. If you listen to the submission that was
made by —

Hon Member,
are you on a point of order?

Mr Speaker, yes. I am just
saying —

Hon Member,
if you are on a point of order, go to the point,
please.

Mr Speaker, if you are
patient with me, I would raise the point I seek
to make.
Mr Speaker, the Hon Minority Leader in
his submission, pointed to Agencies that are
already calling for audit and one of such
Agencies he pointed to, was SEND-Ghana.
SEND-Ghana has actually published that some
of the provisions in the Budget Statement do
not match the expenditure and it is clearly the
reason this is important.

Hon Member,
you are out of order.
Hon Majority Leader, you may continue.

Mr Speaker,
that is a point of argument or debate and not a
point of order. I believe that Hon Members
should learn the Rules in this House.
It is now being considered that these
expenditures are covered in the Appendices of
the Budget Statement. Our Standing Orders
provide in Order 67(h) and this is an enquiry
that is being sought, and I read:
“a Question shall not be asked the answer to which is readily available in official
publications”.
Mr Speaker, an Hon Member is asking
whether this is a Question. What does he
understand by a Question? Let me avert the
Hon Member's mind to the meaning of “Question”. Does he think that Question time is just when an Hon Minister comes to stand
here to answer Questions?
For the Hon Member's elucidation, Question means:
‘except in respect of Question time or period or a Question of privileges, it means a
proposal presented to Parliament or
Committee thereof by the Speaker or
Chairman of the Committee for considera-
tion and decision, undisposal in a matter'.
Mr Speaker, if the Hon Member does not
know, a Motion in this regard, is a Question.
So, Hon Members do not even appreciate the
Standing Orders. The answer to this, exists in
the official publications and as I was saying,
the Budget Statement is an official publication.
This is an abuse of our processes because the
answer that the Hon Member seeks, already

exists in the official publication which is the

Budget Statement.

I am being asked how many people read

the Budget Statement. We are required to read

the Budget Statement as it is an official

publication; it is your charge. So, if Hon

Members do not read it and come to say that

the information provided is inadequate. My

goodness!

Mr Speaker, now, why should the

Committee be chaired by an Hon Minority

Member in Parliament? My Hon Colleague

read article 103(5) and our Standing Orders as

well. This provides that in constituting

Committees, the numerical strength of the

Caucuses should reflect.

— That is why the Hon Member suggested that because of the construct of the PAC, we should

let this Committee — What is the story of the Caucuses? Whether anyone likes it or not, the

story of the Caucuses is 138 on the Majority

and 137 on the Minority Side. [Interruption] — What is the numerical strength of the Hon

Members of this House? Is it 137 plus 137

which is 274? So, what is it? We are talking

about the Caucuses.

Mr Speaker, in every Parliament the

Majority is determined by the strength of

Caucuses, not just in terms of political parties

and I thought that, that was very rudimentary.

Then, because we are talking about article

187 and the Hon Minority Leader was at pains to read the imperatives of article 187. Let the Hon Minority Leader read article 187 and he

stopped - I do not want to believe that it was deliberate. The Hon Minority Leader stopped at article 187(5) and now, let us read sub-clauses (5) and (7). Why did he omit article 187(6)?

If I may read, article 187(6) for the Hon Member and it says:

“Parliament shall debate the Report of the Auditor-General and appoint where necessary in the public interest, a committee to deal with any matters arising from it.”

For now, the report has come to Parliament and it is for the Public Accounts Committee to interrogate it and bring their response to Parliament. Mr Speaker, is this Motion intended to jump-start the imperatives of article 107 —

Mr Avedzi — rose —

Hon Majority Leader, hold on.
Hon Deputy Minority Leader, are you on a point of order?

Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader has mentioned a report that is before the Public Accounts Committee, but there is no report on COVID-related expenditure before the Public Accounts Committee. Mr Speaker, so he should not mention the Public Accounts Committee because there is no such report before us. I want to draw his attention to this so that he corrects himself.

Meanwhile, we are not asking for an audit - we do not have the power to audit. We want an enquiry so he should understand the word “enquiry”. The Auditor-General under article 107 has the power to audit — [Interruption] —

Mr Speaker, he should look at the text of

the Motion.

Mr Speaker,
the charge of the Public Accounts Committee, and indeed of the Auditor-General, is set out in article 107 and it relates to auditing ministries, departments, agencies including what has been omitted as constitutional creatures which includes Parliament, the Judiciary, the Electoral Commission, the National Commission for Civic Education (NCCE) and all other Commissions. This is not even explicit in the Constitution but the Auditor-General has the responsibility to audit the accounts in whatever way these expenditures have been done and then report to Parliament.
After the reports have come to Parliament
and we have interrogated same, if there are any malfeasances that are established, then a Committee is established to deal with it. Mr Speaker, for now, this Parliament has not even done this so what is the intendment of this? Is it to jump-start the imperatives of article 187(6)? Is it to undermine the constitutional imperative? Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that this really has the purpose of mischief because other than that I cannot really understand this.
Mr Speaker, I said that a preliminary
objection has been raised so we need a ruling from you. As for accountability and transparency, it is what this House must stand for but it must not be done using unorthodox
means. That is the purpose of this Motion because it is resorting to unorthodoxy and extreme partisanship. Mr Speaker, that will not be tolerated in this House.
Mr Speaker, in this regard, I would recline
to the position advocated by the Hon Deputy
Majority Leader that this House is governed by
rules and laws and we are privy to the
application of the law and not unorthodoxy and
extreme partisanship. This dress-rehearsal for
the years ahead would not and cannot be
entertained in this House.
Mr Speaker, I invite you to rule on the
acceptability of the Motion because this is
where we are.
Thank you very much.

Hon
Members, I have been invited to rule on the
preliminary objection raised by the Hon
Deputy Majority Leader.
If I understand the preliminary objection
correctly, it seeks to suggest that the Motion
ought not to have been admitted; therefore, it
questions the propriety of the Motion before
the House. In presenting the preliminary
objection, the Hon Member draws the attention
of the House to the constitutional imperatives.
Hon Members, I would start by looking at
the Motion before the House and captured as
item numbered 21. The Motion reads:
“That this Honourable House constitutes a bi-partisan parliamentary committee
chaired by a Member of the Minority

Caucus to enquire into the expenditures

made by Ghana Government in relation to

COVID-19 since the outbreak of the

pandemic in 2020.”

Hon Members, I would have thought that

for a bi-partisan committee or by whatever

name we will call it, we would be referring to

Order 191 - a special or ad hoc committee since a bi-partisan committee is neither a Select

Committee nor a Standing Committee. Hon

Members, I would read Standing Order 191 for

our guidance. It reads:

“The House may at any time by motion appoint Special or Ad Hoc Committee to

investigate any matter of public impor-

tance; to consider any Bill that does not

come under the jurisdiction of any of the

Standing or Select Committees.”

Hon Members, I think this should be the

guiding principles. With the matters that we

have been called upon to set up a Committee to

investigate, are we saying that they do not

come under any of the Select or Standing

Committees of the House? In my view, it falls

squarely within the purview of the Public

Accounts Committee, and indeed, all the

Committees of the House including the Public

Accounts Committee are bi-partisan and by

nature, the Public Accounts Committee is

designed to be chaired by the Minority side.

So, in all its forms and questions related to it,

if the Public Accounts Committee is minded to

investigate anything related to the COVID-19

expenditure, then it is fully seized with the

authority and the power to investigate that,

particularly, since all the accounting relating to

it have been provided for in the Budget

Statement presented to the House and same is

before the Committee.

Hon Members, my view is that this

Motion ought not to have been admitted and it

is improperly before the House. I so rule.

Alhaji Muntaka — rose —

Hon Minority
Chief Whip?

Mr Speaker, thank you
very much.
Mr Speaker, what you have done is to
simply say that with regard to Standing Order
79, where the power of admissibility of
Motions rests on Mr Speaker, it is being
overruled by you presiding in the Chair. Mr
Speaker, are you saying that after a Motion has
been debated, the Motion would not be put to a
Question? Well, there would be interesting
days ahead of us since this is your
understanding of how after a Motion has been
debated, the Question would not be put, but the
Speaker can rule to push the Motion off the
Floor when Order 79 has been duly used to
admit it. Mr Speaker, I think posterity would
judge this ruling.
Mr Speaker, thank you.

Hon Deputy
Minority Leader?

Mr Speaker, thank you. Mr
Speaker in your ruling, you mentioned that,
what the Motion is seeking to do is something
that falls squarely under the Public Accounts
Committee and that the Public Accounts
Committee can do the investigation.
Mr Speaker, I just want to be clear in my
mind that, that is the position you used to rule
on the Motion. If that is the case, I would want
to be clear so that if I take action as the
Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee,
nobody comes back to challenge me.
Thank you.

Hon Member,
the Official Report would come and you would
have the exact words, and you can use it as it
pleases you.
Thank you.

Mr Speaker, I just want
clarification that that is what you meant.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, the rule is that you cannot place something on nothing. The Public Accounts Committee, before it is seized with any jurisdiction, would have received the Auditor-General's Report. So you definitely would receive a report regarding general expenditure for you to take action.
Mr Speaker, we thank you for your ruling. God bless you. May you have a long life.

Can we go to the next item, please?

Mr Speaker, we move to Statements.

Hon Members, Statements.
There are a number of Statements before
me. The first one is a Statement by the Hon Member for Klottey Korle Constituency, Dr Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings.
Hon Member, you may read your
Statement.
Hon Second Deputy Speaker to take the
Chair.

Hon Members, Order while the Hon

Hon Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings, are you ready to read your Statement?

Mr Speaker, if I could crave your indulgence to grant me a few minutes to actually get the hard copies of the Statement to be distributed.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, I crave your indulgence to grant me two minutes to get my Statement in order.

Should I call another Statement?

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Very well.

Very well; Hon Member for Amasaman, you may read your Statement.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity offered me to deliver a statement on Taxation and its associated benefits to every Economy including Ghana.
Mr Speaker, taxation could be explained as the 'imposition of compulsory levies on individuals or entities by governments'. Taxes are levied on every citizens in almost every country of the world, primarily to raise revenue for government expenditure, although they serve other purposes as well.
Mr Speaker, during the 19th Century, the prevalent idea was that taxes should serve mainly to finance governments' expenditure.
In earlier times, and again today, governments have utilised taxation for other things more than for mere fiscal policies and purposes.
In modern economies, taxes continue to be the most important source of governmental revenue. Taxes differ from other sources of revenue, in that, they are compulsory levies and are unrequited-i.e., they are generally not paid in exchange for some specific things, such as a particular public service, the sale of public property, or the issuance of public debt. While taxes are presumably collected for the welfare of taxpayers as a whole, the individual taxpayer's liability is independent of any specific benefit received. Nevertheless, the payments are mostly compulsory, and the link to benefits is sometimes quite weak.
Mr Speaker, there are two main types of taxes, that is direct and indirect tax. Direct taxes are primarily taxes on natural persons (e.g. individuals), and they are typically based on the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by income, consumption, or net wealth.
Mr Speaker, Indirect taxes are levied on the production or consumption of goods and services or transactions, including imports and exports. Examples include general and selective sales tax, value-added tax (VAT), tax on any aspect of manufacturing or production, taxes on legal transactions, and customs or import duties.
Mr Speaker, there are three main categories of taxes. Proportional, progressive, and regressive taxes. These taxes can be distin-guished by the effect they have on the distribution of income and wealth.

A proportional tax imposes the same relative burden on all taxpayers-i.e., where tax liability and income grow in equal proportion.

A progressive tax is characterized by a

more than proportional rise in the tax liability relative to the increase in income, and regressive tax is characterized by a less than proportional rise in the relative burden. Thus, progressive taxes are seen as reducing inequalities in income distribution, whereas regressive taxes can have the effect of increasing these inequalities.

History of Taxation in Ghana

Mr Speaker, in the olden days in our

traditional communities, we were told how citizens contributed gold, silver, diamond among other valuables to the authorities for the development of their various communities. Kingdoms such as Asantes, Denkyiras, Dagombas, GAs to mention just a few, collected taxes from their defeated kingdoms and subjects in the form of gold, silver and sometimes humans. In villages and typical rural communities depending upon their cultural beliefs, if a hunter kills a deer or any big animal, the right limb (leg) of the animal is given to the chief or the head of the traditional area, where the animal was killed. The chief or the traditional leader who took the limbs did not contribute anything to the hunter but yet benefited from it.

Mr. Speaker, one's failure to join

communal labour, when I was growing up in my village, was a serious offense. Communal labour can be likened to taxation in this

modern times. Giving something for the development of our communities started long ago and day in day out, there has been modifications.

Mr. Speaker, these are all examples of

how the people of old contributed to the

community and by extension, nation-

building, and we in modern societies must

embrace this participatory approach of

contributing to the development of our

nation. Taxes are used to improve our

societies and efforts must be made to capture

everybody into the tax bracket. This is

something every government has done, and

will do, because payment of taxes has been

with us overtime.

Mr Speaker, Tax reforms were introduced

in 1983 as an instrument for accelerating

growth, reducing poverty and reducing

Ghana's dependence on aid to finance

government expenditure. The critical issue

has been generating revenues using tax

instruments that are least harmful to the poor.

Tax reforms focus on the four main

components of taxes: taxes on income and

property, taxes on domestic goods and

services, international trade taxes and value-

added tax (VAT).

Mr Speaker, the government needs to

increase tax revenues, as foreign aid continue to decrease due to covid-19 and its associated global economic impact and the need to increase pro-poor spending. The tax net needs to be widened at existing tax rates to generate more tax revenues without harming the poor. However, there are significant problems that constrain the ability to improve

efficiency in tax administration and generate more revenue at existing tax rates:

The institutional structure for tax collec-

tion is weak. Low skill levels of staff means that a significant proportion of taxpayers remain outside the tax net. For instance, businesses and people in self-employment who account for over 34 per cent of the economically engaged population need to be included in the tax net.

Logistics to identify and provide

information on potential taxpayers and the source and levels of their income are lacking.

There has been slow take-off of the

automation and computerisation of the customs management system, which aims to reduce leakage in revenue.

Mr Speaker, the ability to raise revenues

from taxes, called "fiscal capacity" is a crucial aspect of the functioning of any state. Being able to tax citizens and collect revenues efficiently is a cornerstone of state formation and survival.

Secondly, greater fiscal capacity implies

greater access of the state to resources needed to provide public goods and services.

Developing countries are only able to

raise a small share of taxes. Typically, they collect between 10% to 20% of GDP. The average in high-income countries is double at

40%.

Low tax collection rates have devastating

consequences on development. This mean that governments will not be able to invest in public goods such as health, infrastructure and

education. Even the Sustainable Development Goals, which aim, among other things, to build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels, have set mobilizing revenues as a goal on its own; SDG Goal 8.

Mr Speaker, the purpose of taxes is to

provide governments with funds for spending without inflation. Taxes are used by governments for variety of purposes, some of which are:

• Funding of public infrastructure

• Development and welfare projects

• Defence expenditure

• Scientific research

• Salaries of state and government

employees

• Operation of the government

• Public transportation

• Law enforcement

• Public health

• Public education (FSHS, FTVET)

• Public utilities such as water, energy,

and waste management systems

Mr Speaker, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lives and livelihoods has been devastating, with the global economy plunging into a recession in 2020 with a GDP growth of -3.1 %.

Countries around the world developed

strategies to contain and recover from the

impact of the pandemic, including vaccine

administration which have strongly supported

global economic recovery in 2021 with an

estimated growth of 3. 7% up from the -3.1 %

recorded in 2020.

Prior to the Pandemic (2017-2019),

Ghana's economy was strong and stable,

evidenced by robust growth, stable and low

inflation (single digit inflation), declining

interest rates, fiscal deficit contained within

the 5% FRA threshold, strong external

balances with positive trade balance, and

strong reserves.

Mr Speaker, we as a nation should put

our destiny into our own hands, over reliance

on donor support and loans should be

minimized.

We have to, as a matter of urgency, put

in measures to increase Domestic Resource

Mobilization so as to depend less on

borrowing and reduce debt servicing and

hence, the introduction of a new tax that will

include every citizen, the E-levy.

Looking at where we are now, Mr.

Speaker, burden sharing where every citizen

is called upon to contribute his/her quota for

national development is the answer. Mr

speaker, nation building requires the input of

every patriotic citizen.

Mr Speaker, the E-levy as proposed by

the government is expected to help increase

Ghana's tax-to-GDP ratio from approximately

12.2% in 2020 to 20% by 2024. The levy is

expected to help increase the tax-to-GDP ratio

to 16.5% in 2022 from 13.4% in 2021.

The E-levy among other things will;

• Offer Ghana the opportunity to collectively rebuild our economy by

properly managing our debt levels,

• Help address Youth unemployment (which to me is the biggest challenge

we face) with investments in entrepre-

neurship support, youth employment

via the YouStart Initiative,

• Enable government to build proper digital infrastructure and space to support

several E-platform like E-health, E-agric

etc. as well as

• Help give a massive boost to road infrastructure and maintenance.

My constituency, the Amasaman consti-

tuency which is now the third largest

constituency in terms of voter population, per

2020 voter register, has one of the poor road

networks in Greater Accra. But for the timely

intervention of H.E. the President's initiatives

in the road sector, we couldn't have boasted of

even a single tarred road. I believe with the

implementation of the E-levy, government can

have enough funds to complete and give

facelifts to road projects such as Samsam

Junction Samsam-Odumase-Mpehoseam-

Fotobi Road, Medie township roads, Agen

Kotoku-Akotoshie Road, 3 Junction-

Akramaman-Okushibeade-Mayipko Road,

Pokuase-Mayera-Osonodompe Road, 3

Junction-Abehenease- Ga Odumase Armamorley

Road, 3 Junction-Opah-Sapeiman Road, 3

Junction- Kojo Ashong Road, Macedonia

Junction-Kporbikorpe Road among others

which I cannot mention for the sake of time.

Mr Speaker, I watched a video footage of

one former President of the Republic, H.E

John Dramani Mahama's address to journalists at the Flagstaff House on Tuesday

12th January, 2016 in which he stated:

"The thing about government investment

and expenditure is that money comes

from nowhere, it comes from ourselves,

and especially you have a country where

the number of people who know that they

must pay a tax on income do not exceed

30% of the population. Almost 70% of

the population pay only indirect taxes

and so you either have to go and knock

the shop and take a daily rate and at the

end of the year we're all supposed to go

and file our taxes, and declare our

incomes and you say okay you pay 1,000

Ghana cedis, you pay 500, you pay this.

70% or more of our people don't file their

tax returns. And so the only way you can

raise money really is through the tax

system and the only way you can get

everybody to contribute, is through

indirect taxes, and indirect taxes include

like consumption of petroleum products.

And so those who consume more, if you

have a V8 and you buy more petrol, then

you're paying more tax. If you sit in a

trotro you're paying less tax because

fifteen (15) of you are in the trotro using

the same fuel. And so those are some of

the things that we're faced with. It's not

every decision that will be popular. But

what was I elected for as president, to

make decisions that are popular? If I

took popular decisions to make you

happy with me, this country will be on

the ground by now. They 're tough

decisions, I mean do I take pleasure in

imposing taxes on people as if you just

take pleasure in it?"

This can be verified from graphic online

and Joy News of January 12, 2016.

Mr Speaker, "paying taxes should be

framed as a glorious civic duty worthy of

gratitude, not a punishment for making

money" - Alain De Botton, Swiss born British

philosopher and author.

Mr Speaker, in the book of Leviticus, the

Almighty God is a divine provider, yet asked

Christians to pay tithe for the growth and

development of the church. As citizens, we

also have to pay taxes to develop our nation.

Mr Speaker, it is said in Akan that "s3

odehye3 ankoa, akoa dwane" to wit "if the

royal does not fight, the slave will run away

from the battlefield". If we do not sacrifice for

our country, those who give us loans, aids and

donations will ran away from us. Wherever

we are today, either in government or

opposition, we have a huge responsibility to

be mindful of whatever we are doing. Can we

continue to rely on aids, loans and grants?

Can we ran always to IMF for bailout and live

by their conditionalities? Let's take our

destiny into our own hands for heaven, they

say, helps those who help themselves.

Mr Speaker, I wish to appeal to Ghanaians

to appreciate the fact that the decision to charge

levies on electronic transactions is practically

the only option to generate funds locally for

development and is the only potent option to

loan acquisition.

Once again, Mr Speaker, I am most

grateful for the opportunity.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity

given me.

Hon
Members, I would call on the Hon Member for
Afadzato South.
Mrs Angela Oforiwa Alorwu-Tay
(NDC — Afadzato South): Mr Speaker, in my opinion, the Statement made by my Hon
Colleague is sympathetic to a certain levy that
we on the Minority side have fought for some
time now.
Mr Speaker, yes, we know that it is our
duty as citizens, especially those who can
afford or are working, to pay our taxes. So,
some of us are doing that, and about two
million Ghanaians are also doing the same
thing. However, Mr Speaker, we pay the taxes
and would continue to do so, but if we pay the
taxes and our roads remain the same, in a very
deplorable state, then we would not have the
courage or be happy enough to pay these taxes
freely from our hearts.
Mr Speaker, another issue has to do with
what we observe the President do when he
travels. The President, for some time now, has
been travelling on a very expensive jet, and
from an article that was put out today by the
Hon Okudzeto Ablakwa on Ghana Web, it is
very clear that if the President had not been
travelling on this type of jet, where he baths
and parties in the air, he would have been able
to pay about 7,000 Nation Builders Corps
(NABCO) workers an amount of GH₵700 every month for a certain number of years.
Therefore, Mr Speaker, I would want the Hon
Member who made the Statement to know that,
yes, we agree that taxes would have to be paid,
but we would want to see our moneys being put
to good use. The taxes we pay must enable us
to drive on good roads, have water flowing in
our taps, and have electricity constantly being
supplied. It is only then that we would be
happy to pay the tax. This Statement is an E-
Levy-insinuated Statement.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the
opportunity.

Mr Speaker, just for
the records, we are all Hon Members of
Parliament, and the rule is clear that in making
comments, we should not raise matters that
would generate debate. The records must not
maintain that submission by the Hon Member
who just spoke that the President baths on the
jet; it is not true, so she should not say that. My
Hon Colleague is allowed to say what she
wants to say, but she should not say that the

President has been flying an aircraft that allows

him to bath on air. The Hon Member should

not say that. If anything like that is said of her

by her constituents, she would not be happy, so

she should be fair and withdraw that statement.

Hon Deputy
Majority Leader, it is well noted.

Mr Speaker, if the
Hon Member thinks that she has evidence, then
fine, she could produce it. However, in the
absence of that, she should not use speculations
to make a submission that the President has
been bathing on an aircraft that he flies on. She
is a respected Hon Colleague, so she should not
do that.

Hon Member
for Afadzato South, you may withdraw just that
small portion. [Interruption.] Please, reframe
that small portion for me.

Mr Speaker, what are
the facilities that this very jet that is being
rented for several amounts with tax payers' moneys have? This jet has all the facilities that
I mentioned. I only mentioned the facilities that
the jet has. It has a bathing and a dining space.
However, Mr Speaker, if you would want me
to withdraw “bathing space”, then I withdraw.

Very well.
Hon Members, I would move on to the
Hon Member for Anyaa/Sowutuom.

Mr Speaker, I think that
the word “tax” brings about many different emotions. The poor relates to it differently, and
likewise the rich. However, I think that taxing
is one thing that unites the nation, depending
on how we talk about it. It is through taxing
that we equalise some things in our society.
The reason I say this is that there is an adage
that says, “there is no free lunch.” This means that anything we enjoy in this world is
something that has been created, so even with
the free lunch, some worker somewhere might
have cooked it, and as such, that worker has to
be paid.
Mr Speaker, with the roads we enjoy, no
matter the company a person runs in this
country, if his or her products move on the
roads of Ghana, then the person benefits from
a societal commodity. That is why I think that
taxes should unite us as a nation more so than
anything else.

Mr Speaker, as a nation, we have set out

some goals and aspirations of development,

and it has been touted many times. We always

say that we want our nation to develop. I

commend the Hon Member who made the

Statement, the Hon Member for Amasaman,

because tax, in one form or the other, is a

solution to the many Questions we ask on the

Floor. I can count over 600 Questions since I

came to Parliament that relate to the

completion of roads, dams, or drainages. The

bigger question is, where would we find that

quantum of money that Government needs for

us to make our development possible?

Mr Speaker, taxing brings relief to

students who need tuition, and the many who

are sick and are being managed by the largesse

of the National Health Insurance Scheme

(NHIS) in terms of moneys that Government

pays for our healthcare. All these things that we

fight for in terms of the right of the individual

Ghanaian can come to fruition from our tax

base if Government has something little from

each of us to support its initiatives. Need I say

that there is no governmental programme or

project that is housed in the homes of any of

us? Every governmental project is largely for

communal benefit.

In summary, we all need to do an

introspection and be truthful to ourselves. Once

there is no free lunch, and nothing can be made

out of nothing, I would plead with all to

appreciate the need for taxation when necessary.

I would like us to remember that we all

largely follow one religion or the other. One

wonderful thing Jesus Christ said is, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's”. By what I understand, Caesar represented the nation, and

once we Hon Members are part of the Republic

of Ghana, we ought to give the Republic what

is for the Republic.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this

opportunity to talk about taxes. I once again

commend the Hon Member who made the

Statement, Mr Afrifa-Mensa. Mo, wayɛ adeɛ!

Mr Speaker, I just
want to make some few comments. I thank the
Hon Member who made the Statement, and to
say that this is about the third Statement made
ever since the E-Levy was introduced to the
House. When did we realise that we needed tax
to build this country? Mr Speaker, the Energy
Sector Levies Act (ESLA) is still fresh on my
mind. It was christened “nuisance tax”. They asked: “what are you going to use ESLA for?” “To buy bedsheet for John Mahama's comfort?”
Mr Speaker, the introduction of the Value
Added Tax (VAT) is also fresh on my mind,
where leaders of today organised
demonstrations and we lost lives. Today, they
are the apostles of taxes. Have they so soon
forgotten? Now, we have all manner of
theories being propounded. Yes, the days of Ku
me prɛko. Not too long ago, when they came to power in 2017, they said they were abolishing
taxes, but today, it has come back to haunt all
of us, and we are where we are today. I
remember the then vice-presidential candidate,
Dr Bawumia, said we were taxing so much and
it had sent us to a cyclical poverty and that we
should stop, and that was what they were going
to correct. Would they correct this with the E-
Levy taxes?
The then vice-presidential candidate, who
was once a Deputy Governor of the Bank of
Ghana (BoG), told us that there was money at
BoG. The President told us: Yɛte sika so. To wit, we have money; we are sitting on money,
and it was all because the managers were
incompetent. We were told that if governance
was about borrowing, then the 18-year old son
of one of my Hon Colleagues could be
President. What has changed? My Hon
Colleague has walked out. He said we should

be truthful and honest. He should remove the

speck from his eyes first. The leaders of the

New Patriotic Party (NPP) must consider

coming to this House to apologise to the people

of Ghana — [Hear! Hear!] — and we will all listen to them. Otherwise, they do not have that

high moral grounds to lecture us on taxes. No!

Mr Speaker, if borrowing to build roads was

not good then, what has changed today? Mr

Speaker, these are few reminders that I just

want to pass to my Hon Colleagues on the other

Side. The hypocrisy in this country is

becoming too much.

Mr Speaker, I am very surprised that
my Hon Colleague asked about what has
changed. Mr Speaker, when we talk out of
context, sometimes, we lose the essence of the
Statement. Dr Kwame Nkrumah of blessed
memory never experienced COVID-19, and
Kutu Acheampong did not have a confron-
tation with COVID-19. This is the first time in
the history of this world that we have
experienced COVID-19, and every economy
has contracted. Mr Speaker, Hon Terlabi, my
very good Friend, should know that something
has changed; the dynamics of the economies of
the world have changed, and it behoves us that
we come out of the ashes of COVID-19 — [Interruption].

How about Ebola?

Mr Speaker, my Hon Brother
should know that Ebola was not as debilitating
as COVID-19. Economies are contracting and
getting to negative growth; this is serious. We
should not be oblivious of what has happened.
Mr Speaker, when you have very serious
challenges in your life, you cannot do the
normal things. It behoves one to do what is
appropriate and then, find very good solutions
so that one can come out of the doldrums.
Mr Speaker, it is on this showing that I
would want to submit that we should not
develop an allergy to taxes. That is why a lot of
Hon Members left the Chamber when they
heard that we would talk about taxes. I thought
that was our constitutional imperative. If we
pay regard to article 174(1) of the 1992
Constitution, it provides, and with your kind
permission, I would like to quote:
“No taxation shall be imposed otherwise than by or under the authority of an Act of
Parliament.”
We have the duty to ensure that we
impose taxes on our people. For what purpose?
Because this country, given the exigencies of
the moment, cannot develop if we do business
as usual.

That is why, at the moment, we have a

very creative and innovative way of widening

the tax net.

Mr Speaker, what saddens my heart is that

those who have developed this allergy against

E-Levy have not shown us any alternative. You

cannot have a Government improving the

fortunes of this great country when those

whom we are supposed to do so trade ideas

with - Mr Speaker, that is my sense of

opposition: we trade ideas. Sometimes, we are

acoustic in our orientation and it does not help

in the common will. If we do not have

alternatives, how then are going to run the

economy? And then, if we are not careful and

we develop this penchant for borrowing, some

people would come and say that, well, the

economy is so terrible, so you have to be a

candidate of the IMF palliatives and

prescriptions.

You cannot have it both ways; I do not see

how anybody can say that we have been

borrowing too much, and the borrowing is

intended to roll out infrastructure. We need to

improve upon the infrastructure that was

bequeathed to the NPP Government; we should

not maintain the same infrastructure. In fact,

we are on record that we have constructed

more roads than all the governments put

together under this Fourth Republic. And roads

are not cheap! [Interruption]. You would need

adequate money to give roads to our people;

hence, this whole debate about we looking at

E-Levy as a veritable source is one of the ways

of widening the tax net.

Mr Speaker, so I would submit that this is

one of the most important Statements I have

heard this year; that for the first time, we

should raise our consciousness when it comes

to the area of tax.

Mr Speaker, I was expecting the Hon

Member who made the Statement, the Hon Akwasi Owusu Afrifa-Mensa, to give the Biblical support in the area of tax. He just said

Leviticus but after I have finished this, I would go to him and if he can give me a chapter and

verse, I would be able to roll out that even God

supports taxes. He needs to give me the full chapter.

Mr Speaker, this hour, I am excited that the Hon Member who made the Statement, whom I believe is a researched-based Hon

Member of this House, quoted our former Leader. And that is why we should not do politics of convenience when it comes to matters which are sensitive and developmental in orientation. Our former Leader, President Mahama, is on record to have said that the

people who pay tax in the entire economy are just 30 per cent. So, 30 per cent are carrying the 70 per cent on our backs. That is a very unfortunate situation. In a nation where 30 per cent of the people are carrying 70 per cent on their backs, they would break their backs and

have spinal challenges. So, we need to bring more people into the tax bracket. And if we do that, trust me, it is not a matter of politics; it is a matter of proper application of our resources and we would have more infrastructure.

Mr Speaker, when people ask what we have seen in terms of development, I would say, we have seen a lot of development under President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo. Even regarding the Free Senior High School (Free SHS), where do we think the money

came from? The moneys that we for the purposes of developing this country we are gotten from taxes. But when we say we do not have to tax our people, what we are saying is that our development would plateau. As a nation, we would not be able to develop to the

point where we have the best for future generations.

Mr Speaker, I was also elated when he

spoke about responsibility. There is no free

lunch in this world, and we should come to

terms with that. When we had an emergency

situation and people who were taking money

from the national exchequer were laid off — In the COVID-19 era where countries were laying

off workers, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo

was on record because of the resilience of the

economy prior to the COVID-19 era to have

cushioned a lot of people. When a lot of people

were enjoying free electricity and water, it was

not because the economy was very strong.

Now that the relief has come and there is

the need to shore up the economy, it behoves

us to be responsible citizens and say that we

cannot have a permanent free lunch. What it is

is that insofar as we do not want to mortgage

the future of this country and have the

generation that would come after us cursing us,

we need to develop this country very well. And

one of the veritable ways of developing a

nation is to pay the requisite tax. That is the

responsibility of the citizenry of a country.

Mr Speaker, I wish to submit finally that

this consciousness of paying tax has no party

colours. We should forget about the NDC's tendencies and the NPP's tendencies and say for once that in the ashes of COVID-19, we can

now arise and do the normal things. And when

we come together as a nation, this Parliament

would go down in history as one of the most

responsible Parliaments that, in terms of the

Constitution, came together to raise the

requisite revenue for the development of this

country now and in the future.

Mr Speaker, I really commend the Hon

Member who made the Statement that this

Statement is very apt; it is very opportune, and

I am saddened that our partners in Government

have left the Chamber, but I think the Hansard

is the record and subsequently, they would read

and improve upon the situation.

Mr Speaker, I am grateful —[Interruption]— I am grateful, Mr Speaker.

Thank you,
Hon Member.
Now, let me come to the Hon Member for
Sene West.

Mr Speaker, I thank you for
allowing me to add my voice to the Statement
on the Floor by the Hon Kwasi Afrifa-Mensa,
the Hon Member for Amasaman.
Mr Speaker, paying taxes is very
important. We all know that without taxes, we
cannot do anything in the country but we need
to also be responsible, accountable, and honest
to ourselves.
Mr Speaker, everywhere in the world,
taxes are paid. We know that the COVID-19
has kicked in and we are all struggling with our
economy. At the same time, some countries are
also giving COVID-19 reliefs to their citizens
while we are taxing our citizens. So, it is vice
versa; therefore, we have to be careful as a
nation. While others are paying taxes, the taxes
are being utilised; when there is an emergency,
they take good care of their people and give

them reliefs, both kids and adults, while we are

rather taxing in Ghana because we think we

have an emergency.

Mr Speaker, there is always an emergency.

There is drought, bad weather, flooding,

tsunamis, hurricanes, and others. There are

emergency reliefs to the people in other

countries, but in Ghana, we always want to tax

people.

Mr Speaker, when this COVID-19

occurred, we knew that a lot of people's businesses collapsed and would not come back

but there were no reliefs for them. So, these are

issues that we have to look at and put in good

measures. What are the corrective measures we

can put in place for our people who are in need?

Is it just taxing?

My Hon Colleague quoted a quotation in

the Bible about taxes, which is true, but the

same Jesus Christ pulled a cane to cane some

people in the temple due to the corrupt

practices in there. Therefore, if we pay taxes

and they are not put into good use, we need to

be whipped. Ghanaians would not forgive us,

so as leaders in the country, we have to be

accountable for the taxes we are taking.

Mr Speaker, we all know the hardships we

went through due to COVID-19. After

COVID-19, instead of giving us reliefs, they

are rather taxing us. That is fine; we did not

complain and now they are talking about E-

Levy tax. We are saying that this tax should

start from somewhere, but they have rather

jumped. Already, we have two per cent from

the telecommunication operators (Telcos), so

why can the Government not negotiate with

them so that they take part of their taxes and

leave the people? Already, Government is

taxing the telcos and the telcos are taxing two

per cent, in and out. Now, Government also

wants to add 1.7 per cent which would be more

than three per cent which is too much.

Mr Speaker, to be honest with you, if I get

my salary, it is already taxed. So, if I am

sending money to three or more people I take

care of - As Members of Parliament (MPs), we always send money to our constituents and

those in need. So, there is pressure on this

particular money already. How many times do

they want to tax it? There should be a way out.

It sounds like the E-Levy would cure

everything in this country. If you raise the issue

of road, they say E-Levy; planting for food and

jobs, E-Levy; school feeding, E-Levy; Free

Senior High School, E-Levy. The Free Senior

High School came before the E-Levy issue, so

where are we now?

Mr Speaker, with these few words, I thank

Can I come
to the Leadership? We have another Statement.
Let me give the opportunity to the MP for
Madina.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker,
for the opportunity to contribute to the
Statement. I first of all want to congratulate
Hon Afrifa-Mensa for this very important
Statement on taxation.

I must say that taxation is indeed a responsibility and not a punishment and, as a State, we must all endeavour to support all forms of progressive tax policies that are equitable, and that would lead to the generation of Government revenue for the purposes of developing our nation.

Mr Speaker, I believe that we have

reached a point in time where the love for the nation must be above partisan consideration and, if there is anything we should unite ourselves around for the purpose of developing our nation, it must be taxation. However, I believe that every tax policy must be equitable. It is not enough to make a very general statement that, because about 30 per cent of Ghanaians are the only people paying tax for the purposes of the entire country, we should introduce a tax policy that would rake in numbers into the tax bracket without ascertaining the status of the people you are bringing into the tax bracket.

Mr Speaker, as we speak today, the

unemployment rate in Ghana is about 32.8 per cent. When you strike out the nominal figures, in terms of people who are ready, willing and available to work but are unable to do so, we are talking about over 10 million young Ghanaians. The E-Levy, particularly, the aspect that taxes mobile money (MoMo) is only interested in the total number of people being brought into the bracket, without considering the economic status, the employment status, and whether those people are indeed capable of paying the levy.

Mr Speaker, the fear is that we are going

to create a situation where even young people who are in school whose upkeep money is paid through mobile money transactions, for convenience

sake, would be taxed. We are going to create a situation where young men and women who do not have jobs and are at home and rely occasionally on remittances from their parents, relatives, and other benefactors, would be taxed due to the mere fact that they are home and receiving support from people.

Mr Speaker, we are saying that mode of

taxation is obviously retrogressive. When the

Hon Member who made the Statement was

talking, he made copious reference to a

quotation by the former President Mahama. I

heard the quotation very well. What the former

President was referring to was taxing income

and not savings. Nobody is fighting generally

against electronic transactions because any

electronic transaction that leads to income

must be taxed.

Any income a person makes must be

taxed, but if we do not appraise this E-Levy

properly, we would end up not only taxing

income, but taxing savings which would lead

to double taxation. That is the reason we would

continue to speak and fight against the E-Levy.

Otherwise, I sincerely believe that taxation is

indeed a way to go and we should be able to

rally around a tax policy that is progressive and

equitable.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for

We have
come to the Leadership. I thought you yielded
your turn.

Mr Speaker, I requested that
one more Hon Member speak before I speak.

Then it
means another Hon Member should also come
from —

They can speak for
Leadership.

All right,
Leader, hold on.

Mr Speaker, he wanted to use
the strategy you and Joe Wise wanted to use

Mr Speaker, I speak on a
point of order. He said “Joe Wise”. Who is “Joe Wise”? These young men have all lost respect.

He is my
lawyer. Hon Member, I would give you the
opportunity to speak. Hon Member for Adansi
Asokwa, speak.

Mr Speaker, thank you for
the opportunity.
That is what you think. I do not know — [Interruption] Why is the Hon Member so
worried about the fact that I just came in. This
big community is Parliament, so wherever I
am —

Hon
Deputy Minority Leader, do you want to
challenge me? Allow him to speak off record,
if you said he does not know what —

Mr Speaker, you have called me to order, so what is his problem? The fact that he has not seen me in the Chamber does not mean that I have not been around. He does not know where I have been. He does not know whether I have been listening; he does not know what I have on my mind and he said I just entered. He should give me credit because I just entered the Chamber but I know what I would say. He would be very impressed — [Interruption] —

Hon
Member, please, let us hear you.

Mr Speaker, the
Statement is spot on. It is a troubling development in this country when we talk about taxation and how the Ghana Revenue Authority is able to mobilise resource for the country.
Mr Speaker, often times, there is a
suggestion that petty traders do not pay tax and it is a big issue, but the troubling issue is the big companies. The collective collection of taxes from the big companies would pay the little ones into insignificance —

Adansi
dehyiee, please, continue.

Hon Member, please,
concentrate on what Mr Speaker said. He called me “Adansi nkosuohene”. That is my title outside Parliament. You do not recognise that - the whole of Adansi traditional area. You should learn.

Mr Speaker, the collective collection of

taxes from the big companies would pay the

little ones into insignificance but somehow, we

as a country and the institution responsible for

the collection - I would mention names in a minute. It is time we pulled up our socks and it

is time we sat up to concentrate on how we

would go in for the big ones. The oil companies

- we have had problems on this Floor when we raised issues of how much tax these oil

companies owe us which they do not pay. I

raised the issue with regard to Tullow Oil on

this Floor. They owed us so much hundreds of

thousands and at a point in time it was about

US$250 or so million which they had not paid.

Recently, Anadarko is engaged in a big tussle

with the Ministry of Finance and Ghana

Revenue Authority (GRA) over a tune of about

US$500 million. That is the league that we are

talking about. It is as hefty as that. We should

sit up and take it seriously.

I bear some responsibilities for all the

mess in the oil industries because we know that

from the very beginning, I was at the Ministry.

It was my portfolio and I answered to the Hon

Minister then but everybody says that the oil

thing that we did the first time, the blog and

whatever we gave them at the time maybe, was

not very good. It is also because we had just

come in and we sought the help of the man who

eventually became one of the members of the

Supreme Court, Professor Dartey Baah. When

he was at the Commonwealth Secretariat, we

got them to come to Accra for a conference to

get into the physicals of what we do with our

oils. They pointed the way forward and we

followed them, but it looks like with the benefit

of hindsight which is always 20/20, maybe, we

did not get the balance right or something.

They simply expropriate the system and just

cheat us. Tullow Oil is the worst culprit. They

just finance their systems all over the country

and world with our moneys. We do not tax

them much and indeed, what is even due us,

they do not pay. That is the problem. It is true

that we need the money but there are other

avenues from which so much money could be

collected.

Mr Speaker, the issue that also causes

some distress for me, is how we ourselves as

Government also expend the little money that

we get. The Minority has called for the removal

of the Hon Minister for Health because he has

done Sputnik F, K or whatever that he did for

the good of all of them and that is why they

have not died.

They are there and they would not let us

pass our E-Levy because the Hon Minister

managed to get all these COVID-19 vaccines.

Moneys put to good use like that is not what

we are talking about. I have been reading a few

cases from the Supreme Court in the recent

times and they are complaining - from when the Minority was in government. How come

that moneys are dissipated the way they are

without proper accountability? Some

companies come in and they somehow manage

to claim some moneys, people come in for

more, matters going to court - the Woyome issue has not ceased. All these issues and some

of them were under their NDC Administration.

It is a serious situation so somebody

should open their eyes and make sure that the

little that we manage to get is put to good use.

We are people of opportunities and some of the

opportunities are mixed opportunities.

Whatever wind we think we could ride on, we

would take advantage of it, exploit it and then

cheat the system. Everybody is cheating the

system left, right and centre. When we

compare the situation in Ghana to what

happens somewhere else, one would wonder

what on earth is going on. The Auditor-General

is talking about what is going on at all levels.

Everybody says that Parliamentarians,

Government officials and politicians are

corrupt but the businessmen and women are

also very corrupt because they exploit the

system. Apart from not paying taxes, they

inflate things left, right and centre for their own

good and that does not help the country.

Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minority

Leader should, by now, realise that I know the

topic and I know what I have being saying for

a long time.

Mr Speaker, do you want to clap for me?

Next time when I rise to talk, the Hon Member

should remember that there are seniors in this

House and they know what they always want

to say on the Floor. The fact that they may not

immediately be around when the subject is

moved does not mean that they are not aware.

I have been trying to discuss this matter for a

long time so as soon as I got to the Chamber

and I asked what it was and I was told about it,

I knew that my mind had already been

activated and triggered. That is the point.

[Interruption] —

Mr Speaker, I thank you very much.

Deputy Minority Leader (Mr James K.

Avedzi): Mr Speaker, I thank you for the

opportunity to contribute to the Statement.

Mr Speaker, the Hon Member who made

the Statement made reference to the E-Levy

and said that it is necessary we pay the levy to

raise revenue for the State. The levy is a form

of taxation and principles of taxation talk about

fairness and equity. The tax system should not

be regressive in nature and it should not also

result into double taxation.

Mr Speaker, Ghanaians have been paying

taxes and if we talk about taxation, there are

two main types; direct tax which is levied on

the income earned by a citizen. This income

can come from employment, trade or industry,

or from investment. These are the three main

sources by which income is earned. So, one

pays tax on income that he earns and that is

direct tax. As a fact, the system we have does

not capture exactly the amount of income

earned by every Ghanaian, except those on

formal employment, which is easy to tax

because their income is known through

employment. Because of that, the second type

of taxation, the indirect tax, comes in. The

indirect tax is on consumption. The idea is that

if one does not have income, one does not

consume. Once a person consumes, he pays tax

through consumption.

Now, those people whose incomes are

known and pay direct taxes also consume. So,

they pay consumption tax as well. We tax them

both directly and indirectly. This happens

because if I earn income and I am taxed, the net

income comes to me. If I use that net income to

purchase a product, I pay tax on it. In that

sense, such a person already pays double, as

compared to somebody who is not paying

direct tax but only pays indirect tax through

consumption.

Mr Speaker, now, let us look at the E-

Levy. Where does it fall? Is it a direct tax?

Definitely, no! Is it a consumption tax? Again,

no because one is consuming the services of

the telecommunication companies and they are

charging me for using their platform and

patronising their services. They are charging

me one per cent if I make a transfer and the one

who receives also pays one per cent. That is

even capped after GH₵1,000. So, if government is charging me E-Levy of 1.75 per

cent, now 1.5 per cent, which is officially not

known to us here, it means that it is taxing my

capital. The net salary that I receive is what it

is taxing. It is regressive in nature because

government is taxing savings and it amounts to

double taxation. That is the case.

Mr Speaker, Ghanaians would be willing

to pay the tax if they know that the taxes that

they are paying, which are contributions

towards state building, is being used well for

their benefit. But if I pay tax and government

does not use the tax well for my benefit, if

government asks me to pay additional tax, I

would be reluctant. That is what is happening.

If Ghanaians are resistant to this tax, it means

that they are not seeing the use of what they are

already paying. Government should take that

into consideration.

Mr Speaker, the Hon Member who made

the Statement tried to compare revenue to GDP

ratio among the countries in the sub-region.

The question he should ask himself is that, if

our revenue to GDP ratio is lower than the rest

in the sub-region, are those people in the sub-

region collecting E-Levy which makes their

revenue to GDP high? No! This means that

there is something wrong with our system of

revenue generation. We should not say, for us

to be comparable and equal to the rest in the

sub-region, let us introduce the E-Levy so that

we can raise our revenue to GDP ratio because

they are not charging E-Levy.

Mr Speaker, what is wrong with our

system? Now the Ghana Revenue Authority

(GRA) made it known to the Public Accounts

Committee (PAC) that the taxable population

of Ghana is about nine million people in

respect of direct tax. People who earn income

and are supposed to pay tax on the income they

earn are about nine million but effectively,

only 2.4 million people are paying. This means

that about 6.6 million Ghanaians earn income

but do not pay tax. This is an avenue for

Government to go. What do we do as a country

to go after these people so that the income they

earn is also taxed as their contribution towards

nation building?

Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague talked

about the big companies that are earning

income and most of them not declaring the

income they earn. Do those who even declare

the income they earn pay appropriate tax? It is

a big question. He mentioned the oil industry.

So, let us not go the lazy way but let us go after

the people who earn income, apply the tax law

and let them pay the tax. Rather we sit and

cross our legs and say this is the way to go. If

we do that, such taxation would be regressive

in nature and would amount to taxing savings

and capital and also double taxation while

people who actually earn big incomes are left

unattended to.

Mr Speaker, now, the other area is to look

at how to reduce our expenditure. We have to

do something to reduce the expenditure. We

must spend the income we have; we cannot

spend something we do not have. So, if we are

living above our means, we would not grow. If

we live on borrowing, we would not develop.

So, we need to live within our means. We need

to do that to check corruption and to ensure that

moneys spent by civil servants into whose

hands we entrust these moneys are spent in the

interest of the people.

Mr Speaker, I was surprised this morning

when we asked that we inquire into the

COVID-19 related expenditure and they stood

against it. We are rather promoting - we seem to be defending them all the time. They know

that if they do something, one Side of the

House would protect and defend them, so they

would continue to do it. We are not saying

Members of Parliament are involved in that.

We are not even saying the Office of the

President is involved. Who are the people at the

Ministries and Departments who are doing

these expenditure on behalf of Government?

They are the civil servants. So, if we want to

inquire into the expenditure and they sit in

Parliament to protect and defend them, that is

not the proper way to go. They know that they

will do it again and if it is not this Side, it would

be that Side that would be defending them. So,

once we are promoting corruption, we would

continue to be in this trouble all the time.

Mr Speaker, when as politicians, we

mount campaign platforms and because we

want the votes of the people at the time, we

would want to give them all the promises,

knowing very well that those promises we are

giving would be difficult to be fulfilled. Let us

give them those promises and get their votes,

when we get power, we would know what to

do. We mount platforms and say that we would

cancel lots of taxes one after the other.

We have come and you are rather adding.

How do you think the people will think of you?

They will take it that you have deceived them.

So, when we mount platforms, let us speak the

truth and tell the people that we need taxes to

run the State. We should not say we would

cancel some taxes and call others nuisance

taxes. Now, they are facing the bullet; you

threw it there and they are bringing it back to

you. This is because you told them that you

would cancel taxes and you are now

introducing taxes. Would you expect them to

accept it?

Mr Speaker, let us face the fact and eat the

humble pie. Let us apologise to the people that

what we said was wrong and we have come to

the realisation that we need the taxes. The

President said that; ‘y3 te sika so' to wit, we are sitting on money. Where is the money? Are we

no longer sitting on money? It is what we say

with our mouths that come back to haunt us.

So, it is a good Statement the Hon

Member has made but we should not think that

Ghanaians are not intelligent; they are. They

read our actions and what we say, and act

accordingly.

Mr Speaker, I urge this Government to

rather focus on how they can chase those

income earners who are not paying taxes. What

we can do to bring on board the remaining 6.6

million Ghanaians who earn income but do not

pay tax should be looked at, rather than going

the easier way by taxing the poor who sends

GH₵200 to another person and pays 1 per cent charge by the telecommunications companies

yet, Government wants to take that money

from them. It is not fair. We will resist it.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much for

giving me the opportunity to contribute to this

Statement. I hope that the powers that need to

take action would take this into consideration

because it would help all of us.

Mr Speaker, thank you. I hope my Leader would
speak after I am done.
Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity
to contribute to the Statement made by my
neighbour, Hon Member of Parliament for
Amasaman Constituency.
This ‘Guggisberg' economy that we have all craved for, to restructure or change its
nomenclature has been the challenge of every
successive government, and every successive
government has made some attempts which
include; increasing our tax base, revenue,
import substitutions, building factories and
producing in our own country. These strategies
have been in place and every successive
government has tried including increasing the
tax base.
Mr Speaker, the records are clear that in
the year 2017, the Hon Minister for Finance
came here and the nuisance taxes that were
mentioned were all removed. Let us ask
ourselves why we removed the streetlight levy
from 5 per cent to either 2.5 per cent or 3 per
cent. The rural electrification levy was
removed because we saw that there are just a
few Ghanaians who pay the direct and indirect
taxes that the Hon Member is talking about.
Some of these nuisance taxes were all taken out
for that reason.
As I speak, the Hon Minister for Finance
has made it clear that he is cutting expenditure
on the 2022 Budget Statement by 20 per cent.
In real terms, it amounts to GH₵12 billion. These are all measures to make sure that we
would cut our coat according to our cloth.
Mr Speaker, I beg to say that at least,
trying to broaden the base also includes the
introduction of the E-Levy, but let me also state
that this New Patriotic Party (NPP)
Government, led by Nana Addo Dankwa
Akufo Addo, has proved to Ghanaians that
when we take their taxes, we use it for them.
The commutative moral objective of tax is
being demonstrated by this Government.
The Free SHS policy is being funded by
Ghanaian taxes as well as the restoration of the
nursing and teacher trainee allowances, paying

the total costs of the Basic Education

Certificate Examination (B. E. C. E) and West

African Senior Secondary Certificate Exami-

nations (WASSCE) for the public schools. This

is a demonstration that we are really building

the confidence that when a government takes

taxes, one moral objective is the commutative

aspect. This is where the tax payer gets some

returns from what he or she has paid.

Mr Speaker, I did say that we would need

to get the understanding as a Parliament to

ensure that we are able to get the buy-in of the

Ghanaian. Unless for the sake of some political

expediency, one would want to say that the

COVID-19 pandemic has not had a devastating

effect over the global economy. However, if

we want to be honest with ourselves, we would

realise that the global situation and conditions

today are not that smooth and we need to

improve on our productivity as well as increase

our import substitution. We need to get close

substitutes to commodities that we import and

that is why Government is championing the

One District One Factory initiative. This is also

to make sure that we become self-reliant

through the Ghana Beyond Aid initiative.

When we visit the United Kingdom (UK)

and other developed countries, I believe that

the only thing they are yet to do, is to put a

meter close to the nose of any human being

which will be responsible for reading the

quantity of oxygen one breathes and will be

taxed for it. It is the same taxes they pay that

they use to fund our developments for us. We

are not saying that at the end of the day, we are

not sensitive to the plight of Ghanaians.

In any case, if you have high

unemployment rates, you need to generate

employment from the people and we cannot do

this out of nothing.

Mr Speaker, the YouStart Initiative is

supposed to create the opportunities that we

have. Every Thursday or Friday, the Hon

Minister for Roads and Highways would be

here to answer more than 15 Questions on

roads. We need the resources to develop this

country. Let us put ourselves together and

move on.

Mr Speaker, on a lighter note, to my

senior Hon Brother, Statements are made for us

to comment on and not for the Hon Member

who made the Statement to be told to rather

pick the speck out of his eyes.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the

opportunity, and we would continue another

day, however, we are encouraging Ghanaians

to buy into the E-Levy so that the country will

grow and come out of the COVID-19

challenges. Mr Speaker, I know that for the

sake of God and country, we would pass the E-

Levy Bill, 2021.

The Hon
Majority Leader would comment briefly.
Majority Leader (Mr Osei Kyei-
Mensah-Bonsu): Mr Speaker, I would make a
few comments on the Statement ably made by
my Hon Colleague.

Mr Speaker, the pivotal issue is about the

need to do serious introspection and see if we

cannot impose some taxes internally to raise

some resources for the development of this

country. Mr Speaker, I think along the line

issues have been raised regarding what exists

in the system and what use it is being put to

what already exists.

The Hon Deputy Minority Leader has

raised issues about corruption, leakages and so

on in the system, and I cannot agree more with

him because, as a country, we must own up to

this. Mr Speaker, there are many leakages in

the system that we need to pluck, and there is

pervasive corruption in the system that we need

to cure. Mr Speaker, let us own up and be

sincere to ourselves. Is it the case that these

issues that we are relating to and debating

strongly and forcefully have suddenly arisen

about leakages and corruption in the system? If

we are being honest with ourselves, is it the

case?

Mr Speaker, for anybody to say that until

we are able to purge the system of these

malfeasance then the Government should not

talk about the imposition of taxes, I believe it

is very unfortunate. That notwithstanding,

there are grave issues that as a nation we have

to confront. For instance, in the oil industry, if

we probe as a nation today, the Bulk Oil

Distributing Companies (BDCs) and the Oil

Marketing Companies (OMCs) would indicate

that the daily consumption of petroleum is

about 80,000 barrels whereas the experts are

telling us that daily consumption is about

120,000 barrels. Mr Speaker, this means that

about a third of our daily consumption,

perhaps, is experiencing some cheating in the

system such that, perhaps, taxes are not being

paid. We need to interrogate this and we would

need the appropriate Committee of Parliament

to trace and track this. It is not a matter for the

Public Accounts Committee. The Committees

are charged with these responsibilities.

Mr Speaker, we do not see this in

Parliament and that is why I keep saying that

Parliament itself is not doing what is required

of it to help purge the system of mischief that

we believe we must be curing. Mr Speaker,

electricity is generated at a very high cost to

this country, yet we do know that about 20 per

cent of all electricity that is generated in this

country is unaccounted for, through leakages in

the system such as wiring and illegal

connections. It is not about Government but

about ourselves.

Mr Speaker, about 25 to 26 per cent of

potable water that is delivered for consumption

is unaccounted for. Is it the doing of

Government? Mr Speaker, the responsible

agencies are not living up to their billing and

the appropriate Committees of Parliament

must trace and track these matters and to save

for us as a nation, huge sums of moneys that

we need to develop our country.

Mr Speaker, with regard to property rate -

growing up even in the villages, councillors

were chasing landlords and family houses and

they used to visit on Sundays and Tuesdays

which were non-farming days to bring the bills.

However, in this country today, how many

people pay property rates or pay appropriate

rates? Is it the making of Government? Mr

Speaker, so why should anybody say that until

we confront these issues, we should not

introduce new taxes?

Mr Speaker, the Auditor-General's Report every year is full of indictment for the District

Assemblies, and so much is going waste at the

level of the District Assemblies. They do not

have the competence for the utilisation of the

amounts that are allocated to them. Mr

Speaker, what is being done to the internally

generated funds? Is it the fault of the Central

Government?

Mr Speaker, if people say that the

Government should do so and so, tackle

corruption in the system and pluck the leakages

in the system before new taxes are introduced,

I ask if these are matters of today or yesterday.

They are matters that have afflicted our

development since time immemorial.

Mr Speaker, the number of people on

government payroll in Ghana is about 700,000

but in Cote d'Ivoire it is about 200,000 yet their economy is in a better shape than Ghana. Mr

Speaker, they depend on taxes not by the

200,000 people but the informal sector is

captured appropriately, but it is the opposite in

Ghana and we need to confront this. It is not

the creation of this government so why do we

not come together as a collective body to fight

this together, rather than making it appear as if

it is the NPP Administration that is encoura-

ging corruption and these leakages in the

system? We are not being sincere with

ourselves.

Mr Speaker, Hon Avedzi is saying that we

need to start from somewhere and I agree with

him, but we should never let it appear as if it is

the creation of this Government. We need to

start and if it is now, then we must come

together and pull our heads together to start it

and not let is appear as if it is the creation or

fault of this Administration. The indictment on

the District Assemblies started more than 15

years ago. This is where we are.

Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleagues have

spoken to the fact that if we introduce the E-

Levy it may amount to double taxation. We

earn money, pay relevant taxes, we pay for

goods we buy. What is the E-Levy? It is a

service — [Interruption] Mr Speaker, yes, we are consuming the service rendered by the

service providers. Mr Speaker, we even need to

interrogate what my Hon Colleague is saying.

This is because he is even getting it wrong

when he says that the telecommunication

companies are providing the platform. They

are not - [Interruption] - It is not the telecommunication companies that are

providing the platform. The interoperability

platform is not created by the

telecommunication companies. What they take

is for just the service that they provide.

Mr Speaker, that is why I keep telling

them that they are getting the argument wrong.

If they do not know that the platform is not

even owned by the telecommunication

companies, then they are getting it wrong.

Mr Speaker, we must interrogate this — [Interruption] — I know what I am talking

about. They rather do not know. The

interoperability platform on which they

provide the service is not owned by the

telecommunication companies.

Mr Avedzi — rose —

Hon Deputy
Minority Leader, you have had your chance.

Mr Speaker, interoperability
is where money is being moved from one
network to another. But if I am moving money
from Vodafone to Vodafone, I am not using
that service. They should correct that one. It is
only when I am moving money from MTN to
Vodafone or Vodafone to MTN or any other
network that I use the interoperability facility.
Even if one is transferring money from
Vodafone to Vodafone, he is charged. So I am
not using that platform. It should be corrected.

Mr Speaker,
my Hon Colleague should really better educate
himself about the operation of the system. With
what he is saying, he is getting it wrong and
that is why they are getting their arguments
wrong outside there, and misinforming
Ghanaians.
Mr Speaker, that platform is the common
platform. We use it intra and inter. They do not
even know this. They keep polluting the minds
of Ghanaians, with respect to the Deputy
Minority Leader. I believe that — [Interruption] — Mr Speaker, that is really at the heart of it. But the people should know that even if one
pays taxes and wants to donate an amount of
the money that he has paid tax on to somebody
as a gift, taxes would still have to be paid. This
is because in this country, there is a gift tax law.
That is why the person at the other end must
pay. One pays for the service and the person
who receives it as a gift must pay the tax. This
is fundamental. They are getting the whole
argument wrong.
Mr Speaker, the resistance to VAT - the main crust of it was the rate and not an outright
opposition to VAT. I think, again, we must
consult the Official Report. They should go and
read what was said in this House when the
VAT was introduced. People make it appear as
if there was - it was the rate.
Mr Speaker, my Hon Colleague, the Hon
Member for Somanya is asking about the
Communication Service Tax. Do not do this
balancing act. The Communication Service
Tax, which they christened “talk tax” was also opposed. But are we there?
Mr Speaker, I would be winding up
quickly and I believe that if they allow me, I
would wind up soon enough.
Mr Sampson Chiragia — rose —

Hon
Majority Leader, hold on.

Mr Speaker,
my senior Colleague talked about gift tax.
When we talk about gift tax, there are
exemptions. It is misleading and people are
listening to us. This is a point that we are not
the only people listening to him. The whole
world is listening to us and what he said is not

true. In taxation, that one is not acceptable. So

he should not talk about gift tax when we are

talking about E-Levy. The argument here is

about the base. A tax must have a base. What

is the tax base as far as E-Levy is concerned?

We are not talking about giving money to

another person - donations are exempted from tax. If a person is donating money to his

mother, it is exempted. It is when things are

given to somebody as a gift that we talk about

gift tax. But when I am sending money to my

mother, it cannot be called a gift. We do not

give gifts to our wives.

We have
heard you, Hon Member.
Hon Majority Leader, please, wind up for
me.

Mr Speaker,
seriously, this is a point of debate. He wants to
debate what I am saying. And I disagree with
the foundation of the issue that he is even
talking about.
Mr Speaker, I am happy that he raised the
issue about the tax base and the Hon Deputy
Minority Leader spoke to the same thing, that
the tax base in this country is very narrow.
How do we expand it? He quoted the figures of
GRA that people paying now in the region of
2.4 million.
Mr Speaker, the most recent census is
even indicating to us that the number of people who should fall within the taxable bracket is really 11.2 million and not even 9 million. If we have 2.4 million people paying out of 11.2
million people, that is serious. How do we increase the tax base?
Mr Speaker, this is really one area that we
can use to expand the tax base and robe in as many people as possible in the informal sector. He said that he is relating to MTN. They are dominating the telecommunication companies and we know that MTN, for instance, is not a Ghanaian company. They have come from outside. They make money and apart from paying for overhead charges and so on, the bulk of it is taken to their country of origin to develop their country. People have no issue with that. Our own government is saying that can we have something to develop the country; offer employment and create jobs, and we say no, we do not want that. But we want them to take the money to South Africa for development. We do not want same moneys to be taken to develop our country. What kind of logic is that, with respect? Are we being patriotic?
A foreign company comes and that
company is not even established to perform what they are doing now and we are allowing them for convenience sake to do that. They take our money and go to develop their country of origin. Our government is saying that we module our tax on similar operations and we say no but we allow a foreign entity to do it and take our money to go and develop their country, and we are happy with that and say that we would resist it. Resist taking money from our citizens to develop our country? We do not want to resist a foreign entity taking our country men and women's money to develop their country. That one is not being resisted and we say we are patriotic Ghanaians.

Mr Speaker, I think the era of polluting the

conscience of Ghanaians should cease. But we

would come to that when we come to the

debate on the E-levy. I do not want to say that

this is a dress-rehearsal to what is to be

expected on that day.

Mr Speaker, now we are hearing that they

are not opposed to the tax but they are only

saying that it should not be on transfers, it

should be on the wallet.

What does it mean? Their Leader said so

in an interview on TV3 last Friday. So, what it

means is that the Minority is not totally

opposed to the imposition of a new tax; it is the

incidence of the tax that the Hon Member is

now talking about. If that is the case, let us

come together and reason. Which is the best

way of doing it? But to say that they resist the

tax, I cannot for the life of me, believe that

stance from patriotic Ghanaians.

Mr Speaker, we are not there yet. But I

think Ghanaians should appreciate the import

of the E-Levy.

Hon
Members, can we take another Statement?
[Interruption] Then we would move to adjourn
the House.
Hon Majority Leader, what time are we
Sitting tomorrow?

Mr Speaker, I
believe it can be 10 o'clock in the forenoon.

Mr Speaker, can we agree to
take the Statement that you want us to take
tomorrow morning?

We have a
couple of Statements.

Mr Speaker, that is the
Statement by Dr Zanetor Agyeman-Rawlings
— [Interruption] — I am her Leader. So, we have agreed.

Very well;
I even wanted to call her, but it appears we are
tired. So tomorrow we will start with that.