Debates of 22 Mar 2022

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER
PRAYERS 10:34 a.m.

Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:34 a.m.
Hon
Members, we will move straight to the
item numbered 4 - Correction of Votes and Proceedings and the Official Report.
We have the Votes and Proceedings of
Friday, 18th March, 2022 for correction.
Page 1…10 -
Dr Kingsley Nyarko 10:34 a.m.
Mr
Speaker, on page 10, item numbered 13,
the sentence is grammatically correct, but
I do not know whether it is procedurally
right. It says “Question put and agreed
to”, but previously, I had been seeing
“Question put and Motion agreed to.” I
do not know whether procedurally, the
word “Motion” should be captured or it
can be left out.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:34 a.m.
The Table
Office will look at it again and do the
needful.
Page 11 -
Dr Nyarko 10:34 a.m.
Mr Speaker, on page 11,
there is a minor punctuation issue. In the
last sentence under “Opening”, there should be a comma after “Chairman” so that it reads,
“The Hon Chairman, Mr Francis Manu-Adabor presided.”
Mr Charles Acheampong 10:34 a.m.
Mr
Speaker, on page 12, the meeting of the
Public Accounts Committee was on
Friday, 18th March, 2022, but it has been
stated to have taken place on Wednesday,
16th March, 2022.
Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:34 a.m.
This is the
report on the meeting held on
Wednesday, 16th March, 2022; it is not
the one held on Friday, 18th March, 2022,
so it is correct.
Any more corrections?
Page 14…23.
Hon Members, subject to the
corrections effected, the Votes and
Proceedings of Friday, 18th March, 2022,
is hereby adopted as the true record of
proceedings.
We have the Official Report of
Wednesday, 2nd March, 2022, for
correction.
  • [No correction was made to the Official Report of Wednesday, 2nd March, 2022.]
  • Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:34 a.m.
    I am not
    clear. Are you saying you want to go on
    to the item numbered 6 or 7?
    Mr Annoh-Dompreh 10:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    we should go on to item numbered 6.
    Deputy Minority Leader (Mr James
    Klutse Avedzi): Mr Speaker, my
    understanding is that the Hon Minister to
    make the Statement is not here, so her
    Deputy would make the commemorative
    Statement. It has been agreed so we could
    go ahead.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:34 a.m.
    Very well;
    the order of Business is varied. We would
    move on to the item numbered 6 -
    Statements. We will start with the
    commemorative Statement by the Hon
    Deputy Minister for Sanitation and Water
    Resources.
    STATEMENTS 10:44 a.m.

    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Yes, Hon
    Member for Madina?
    Mr Francis-Xavier Kojo Sosu (NDC
    - Madina): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity given me to
    contribute to this very important and
    timely Statement ably delivered by my
    Hon Colleague.
    Mr Speaker, water indeed is tied to the
    right to life and anytime we talk about
    fundamental human rights: right to life,
    right to good health, and right to
    sanitation, water plays a very important
    component for the enjoyment of these
    rights and that is why I find it really
    necessary that as a nation, we need to pay
    closer attention to this resource that we
    have highly under-utilised.
    Mr Speaker, statistics published by the
    Agro-African Grand Water 2020 project
    indicates that 95 per cent of ground water
    is used in Ghana for domestic water
    supply. It means that there is the potential
    available for industry in Ghana to
    consider the use of ground water. I
    believe that if we could put in the
    appropriate technologies that allows
    some of the heavy utilisers of water in
    Ghana to resort to ground water, we
    would be able to reduce the perennial
    shortage of water in the country for the
    purposes of domestic use.
    Mr Speaker, I have also realised that
    even though this resource is readily
    available, there is the lack of direct
    commitment from policy-makers; for
    example, the Government and Ghana
    Education Service (GES) to directly
    harness these potentials for the benefit of
    specific sectors. For example, when you
    come to Madina, one of the things I
    realised recently is the fact that a lot of
    public basic schools have toilet facilities
    but could not use them because they do
    not have water. I then ask myself why we
    cannot have a direct policy for example,
    where all basic schools across the country
    partner with development partners to drill
    mechanised boreholes that would pipe
    every toilet facility in these schools. So, it
    is on this that I really commend the Hon
    Member who made the Statement. He
    Statements

    called on Hon Members to partner.

    People like us are really willing to

    partner.

    One of the things we recently started

    in Madina is Water for all Public Schools

    Project and we already have some Non-

    Governmental Organisations (NGO) on

    board to ensure that we can drill

    mechanised boreholes in every public

    school that has toilet without water. So, I

    am also calling on Government to partner

    people like us who are willing to come up

    with projects like that in our

    communities, so that they commit to it,

    and we can make water available. This is

    because water, indeed is life.

    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for

    the opportunity to contribute to this very

    important Statement.
    Mr Kennedy Nyarko Osei (NPP - Akim Swedru) 10:54 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you
    for the opportunity to add my voice to the
    Statement that has been read by the
    Deputy Minister for Sanitation and Water
    Resources.
    Water is life as they say, and it is one's right to have water. It is not a privilege,
    so at every point in our lives, we should
    ensure that every Ghanaian has access to
    potable water to drink. It is not enough
    that a certain class would have access to
    enough water while others struggle to get
    good water to drink. I am happy that
    today being a commemorative day to
    celebrate World Water Day, 2022, we are
    drawing the attention of the authorities,
    including ourselves as Members of
    Parliament (MP) because Government
    alone cannot provide water for all but in
    our little way, we would also be able to
    support our constituents by providing
    them with good water sources, so that
    they can also have access.
    We know the consequences of not
    providing potable water to our people.
    We know the health implications and the
    cost it brings to the nation, so we have to
    do everything possible to provide potable
    water to every Ghanaian. They should
    have access and it should not be difficult
    for any Ghanaian to have access to
    potable water; we can only do it by
    commitment. We need to make all efforts
    and commit to providing potable water,
    or in our own means -
    Mr Speaker, sometimes it hurts when
    you see certain groups of people, some in
    vehicles struggling to get potable water to
    drink, not to think of what they would
    even use to wash their clothes. Even what
    to drink becomes a problem for them and
    these are issues we see every day. We
    watch it on television and social media
    and even witness it with our own eyes.
    This is something that as a country, we do
    not have to let it continue; therefore, we
    have to use today to demonstrate to the
    world and to Ghanaians that irrespective
    of how expensive it would be, we have
    resolved to ensure that every Ghanaian
    would have access to potable water. That
    Statements

    demonstration would come from you and

    I.

    I would also call upon Ghana Water

    Company Limited. Sometimes, you go to

    some places and you might see some

    burst pipes with water gushing out for a

    long time. This is water that could have

    been saved to support other people but it

    all goes waste. So, it is about time we

    knew that if it is a right and not a privilege

    for every Ghanaian to have access to

    potable water, then we have to do

    everything to make sure that they have

    access to it.

    Mr Speaker, on that note, I would want

    to thank the Hon Member who made the

    Statement for bringing this important

    Statement to the House. I believe my Hon

    Colleagues would also heed to the call to

    do the little they can to support their

    various constituencies and the villages

    under them, so that they can also have

    access to potable water.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 10:54 a.m.
    Is the Hon
    Member for Kpandai in the House?
    [Pause] He had a Statement on the same
    issue to read but I wanted - Hon Member,
    I am not asking you to read your
    Statement, it has just been brought to me.
    But you may comment, picking
    information from your Statement, so we
    do not have two Statements. So please,
    proceed to make your comments.
    Mr Daniel Nsala Wakpal (NDC - Kpandai) 11:04 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for
    the opportunity to add my voice to the
    Statement made by my Hon Colleague.
    As we all know, water is life, and not
    a privilege as Hon Members who spoke
    earlier said.
    Mr Speaker, this is a challenge for
    the Hon Members from the rural areas,
    and it must be addressed. In my
    constituency, the Kpandai Constituency
    women struggle each day to get water for
    use. In the Northern Region, the women
    are forced to share the little water
    available or water from the pond with the
    cattle - As today marks World Water Day, I would want to call on the Hon
    Minister for Sanitation and Water
    Resources to do the needful. Last year,
    the Hon Minister was in the House to
    answer some Questions with regard to the
    problems the people of Kpandai face and
    she said that no budgetary allocation was
    made for the construction of boreholes or
    dams or for one.
    Mr Speaker, it was stated in the NPP
    Manifesto that there would be a One
    Village One Dam Project and we thought
    that it would be a solution to our water
    crisis but what do we see today? In the
    constituency, all the dams that have been
    constructed —I visited one of the communities called Kamawule and the
    Statements

    dam had dried up. This is a challenge and

    so, I would want to call on the Hon

    Minister to do the needful. As of today,

    more than 100 boreholes are not in use, so

    the Ministry should have a way to deal

    with the Assembly so that the boreholes

    would be repaired every year in order to

    achieve these Sustainable Development

    Goals (SDGs). As we all know, by 2030,

    all the 17 Goals must be achieved but

    when we look at the crisis in our

    constituencies in the country, I do not

    think that we have even achieved one.

    Mr Speaker, this Statement is a wake-

    up call for everybody and for all

    parliamentarians to do what we could to

    be able to solve this crisis because it is

    alarming. I would also want to call on our

    Vice President, the economic wizard, to

    do the needful to help the Ministry get

    some of the funds. This time, it is not

    about the E-Levy. We have noted that

    when the E-Levy is passed, our roads

    would be fixed but in this case, with

    regard to water issues, the Hon Minister,

    together with the Government, should do

    the needful and make sure that we solve

    this perennial shortage of water in our

    country and for that matter, in my

    constituency, Kpandai.

    Mr Speaker, I thank you very much for

    giving me the opportunity to contribute to

    the Statement.
    Mr George K. O. Takyi (NPP — Manso-Nkwanta) 11:14 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to
    this all-important Statement to
    commemorate “World Water Day, 2022”.
    Mr Speaker, we say water is life but in
    these recent times, water is indeed, not
    life because it threatens life. For some
    time now, all children under the age of six
    months are not given water; they are
    breastfed because research has shown
    that most infant mortalities are caused by
    water-borne diseases and therefore, to
    prevent infant mortality, children under
    six months are breastfed instead.
    Mr Speaker, in the past, we depended
    on water from the stream and how it was
    managed made it potable and healthy for
    consumption. All streams were managed
    well and there were traditional rules
    which governed their use and how to
    manage their resources.
    Nobody was allowed to wash in water
    bodies because they would be
    contaminated by chemicals. Water was
    covered by the forests, and the forests
    around the water bodies were not allowed
    to be cultivated or cleared for farming. At
    the same time, the duty of all the people
    — Anybody who contravened the laws which governed the stream was called to
    the palace and punished. Also, one could
    not go to the farm and use any chemical
    that would pollute the water resources.
    Statements

    That meant that in those days that we did

    not have pipe-borne water and did not

    harvest ground water, people knew how

    to manage water resources to prevent

    certain diseases and that was indeed,

    water for life. Today, we have most of our

    forest resources cultivated into farms; we

    have cleared forest resources for

    residential areas and we have polluted our

    water bodies with chemicals in mining.

    We have polluted our water bodies in so

    many ways that today, the source of water

    has become a source of worry and death.

    Mr Speaker, it is important to consider

    that it is not just the abundance of water,

    but the quality of it that could protect life.

    So, when we talk of water being life, it

    means that we have to look at its quality

    and not the quantity. Today, some people

    import water into the country because of

    the quality of water we consume in this

    country. Ground water has been

    threatened because chemicals seep into

    the water bodies underground.

    Last week, a Statement was read on

    this Floor where pesticides and chemicals

    used in farming have been a source of

    worry because our water bodies and

    underground water, if care is not taken,

    are all going to be contaminated, and that

    will be a source of worry for our lives.

    Mr Speaker, it is important for all of us

    to get involved in the management of our

    water resources to make sure that we

    control and manage what we have now so

    that it does not become a source of threat

    to lives. We should also manage the water

    resources and not only the abundance of

    it, but its quality. Yesterday, there was a

    news item on the television where people

    carried gallons in search of water. Why is

    this so? The water bodies that were in our

    cities before we converted them into

    residential areas were all a source of

    drinking water to our people. It was a

    source of household use. Today, most of

    our waste have been diverted into these

    water bodies such that they are not

    potable. So, people have to troop and

    travel miles and kilometres to fetch water

    from other places because all the streams

    have been polluted, and this could create

    problems for us.

    Mr Speaker, it is therefore important

    that as we commemorate World Water

    Day, 2022 today, Hon Members of this

    House, through our communities, have to

    do proper education to make sure that our

    water resources and the streams are

    managed and protected very well to

    ensure that we do not import water and

    blame anybody in the future. We may

    have to blame ourselves if we do not

    manage our resources well but to allow

    the water bodies to be polluted and then

    end up having to import water into this

    country before we get potable water to

    drink.

    Statements

    Mr Speaker, I thank you for the

    opportunity to contribute to this all-

    Dr Clement A. Apaak (NDC -

    Builsa South): Mr Speaker, I thank you

    for giving me the opportunity to

    contribute to the very timely and well-

    researched Statement made by the Hon

    Deputy Minister for Sanitation and Water

    Resources on this special day.

    Mr Speaker, various experts have

    indicated that the next major global

    conflict, otherwise, war would be fought

    over water and not any other resource.

    Hon Members who earlier made

    comments to this Statement have all

    alluded to the importance of water.

    Indeed, ground water is a very important

    and reliable source of water but our own

    conduct in terms of behaviour and

    attitude is affecting the water table.

    As we speak, those of us from rural

    communities and constituencies, where

    hitherto, were easy to hit water when

    drills penetrated the ground — these days

    we do not get water because of the

    destruction of our forest cover. When the

    trees are destroyed, it exposes the land

    area to all the extreme aspects of the

    weather and this affects the levels of the

    water bed.

    Mr Speaker, if we are to make a

    difference, in this enterprise, we ought to

    commit to protect our forest and to stop

    the destructive behaviour that is not only

    just polluting surface water, but is even

    polluting underground water.

    So, yes, as we celebrate this day, let us

    all make a conscious effort to protect our

    forest and to desist from conducts that

    would pollute groundwater for our own

    survival and safety. Indeed, water is life

    and we ought to protect our water

    resources.

    Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me

    the opportunity to add my voice on this

    auspicious day.

    Minister for Communications and

    Digitalisation (Mrs Ursula Owusu-

    Ekuful) (MP): Mr Speaker, thank you

    for this opportunity to contribute to the

    Statement so ably made by the Hon

    Deputy Minister for Sanitation and Water

    Resources on World Water Day. The

    theme is also apt - Ground Water, Making the Invisible Visible.

    Mr Speaker, I find this so important

    because since the year 2020, I have been

    using ground water through a borehole in

    my house, so when we look at the

    challenges that human activities may

    cause in terms of pollution and climate

    change to the restoration of ground water

    resources to enable us have a continuous

    use of it, I think it is important that we

    Statements

    focus on what we can all do as individuals

    to preserve this valuable resource.

    As many Hon Members' comments on the Statement have already indicated,

    without water, we are all down and so, it

    is incumbent on all of us to do what we

    can to preserve this valuable resource. So,

    when we are acting at variance with what

    we know would protect the environment,

    we need to be mindful of it - [Hear! Hear!] - When we are indiscriminately throwing refuse into our water sources, as

    well as pouring chemicals and other

    things on the ground, we should be

    mindful of the fact that it would seep into

    the ground water and affect the quality of

    the water that we all depend on to live.

    Mr Speaker, when we are acting to

    affect the climate in our environment, we

    should also be mindful of that. So, with

    rising temperatures as the Statement

    indicated, dramatic changes in rain

    patterns, more water is evaporating over

    land and this limits the amount of water

    to refill the used or lost ground water.

    We should also be mindful of building

    in wetlands and other natural water

    storage systems that the good Lord

    Himself has provided for us. We may

    think that we have bought land that we are

    building on, but we are reducing the

    amount of water being absorbed by the

    earth which would seep into the wetlands

    for our own eventual usage. So, we

    should know that we all have a part to

    play in making sure that this valuable

    resource is protected for us and

    generations yet unborn.

    Mr Speaker, it is also gratifying to note

    the efforts made by the current

    Government to provide water to

    populations which for many years have

    been without potable water. The

    Statement enumerated a number of them;

    the Upper East Water Supply is serving

    347,000 people in Navrongo, Bolgatanga,

    Paga, Bongo and their surrounding areas.

    Under the Ghana-Spain Debt Swat

    Development Programme (DSDP),

    69,000 people in 35 communities in the

    Adaklu, Agortime-Ziope, Ho Municipal

    and Ho West Districts of the Volta

    Region are benefiting from potable water

    provided by this Government. A number

    of 254,411 people in 424 communities in

    five Districts in Central and North Tongu,

    Adaklu, Agortime-Ziope again and Ho

    West are also being catered for. The

    Damongo Water Project is also ongoing

    and for 80,000 people in that catchment

    area for the first time to also get potable

    water, I think it is very commendable and

    we need to commend the Government for

    its efforts in this area.

    Mr Speaker, there is a lot more

    including the Yendi Water Supply Project

    as well. I think that these and all other

    efforts that have been made by previous

    Governments to ensure that our people

    enjoy potable water is commendable. We

    Statements

    should all do what we can to assist the

    Government to provide water for

    vulnerable populations across the

    country.
    Mr Sampson Ahi (NDC - Bodi) 11:24 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, thank you very much for the
    opportunity to contribute to the Statement
    on World Water Day.
    Mr Speaker, we all know that
    water is life and that all efforts must be
    made to ensure that we provide potable
    and quality water to our people. As we
    celebrate World Water Day today, we
    want to encourage Government to ensure
    that as a country, we have not been able
    to cover all the needs of our people in
    terms of achieving a 100 per cent water
    supply, this means that there are some
    people in Ghana who do not have access
    to quality water. It is the work of
    Government to ensure that everybody in
    Ghana has access to quality and potable
    water.

    That is why under the Leadership of

    His Excellency John Dramani Mahama in

    the previous Government, several

    programmes were put in place to ensure

    that access to potable water was increased

    up to 75 per cent rural water and 76 per

    cent urban water - this is just to mention a few. Mr Speaker, we added 40 million

    gallons to the Kpone Water System to

    move it from 40 million gallons to 80

    million gallons before we left Office.

    Mr Speaker, if the Hon Deputy

    Majority Leader were to be here, he

    would have corroborated what I am

    saying. The previous Government

    expanded the water project in Winneba - Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Majority

    Leader has just entered the Chamber. At

    a point the Hon Deputy Majority Leader

    had to commend former President

    Mahama for listening to the cries of the

    Winneba people. Mr Speaker, the

    Konongo-Kumawu Water Systems were

    expanded. We also added to the capacity

    of rural water from about 60 per cent to

    75 per cent before we left office.

    Mr Speaker, when I was entering the

    Chamber, I heard the Hon Minister for

    Communications and Digitalisation

    talking about the difficulties in getting

    raw water as a result of the activities of

    illegal mining. Mr Speaker, because of

    illegal mining activities, access to raw

    water has been reduced and we are unable

    to treat some for the distribution to our

    people. Therefore, I call on the

    Government to ensure that water bodies

    would be protected so that we would have

    access to raw water for treatment and

    distribution to our people.

    Mr Speaker, when one moves around

    the country, one would see that lots of

    water ways in the rural areas have dried

    Statements

    up because people are building houses as

    close as 50 metres into water bodies and

    this also destroys our vegetative cover

    and has consequences on the water

    bodies. So, the Water Resources

    Commission should as a matter of

    urgency tackle this issue so that our river

    bodies would be protected for us to have

    water for our people.

    Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Chief

    Whip is asking me to conclude but he is

    also an Hon Member who has to

    commend the previous Government for

    extending water to the people of

    Nsawam-Adoagyiri. I remember he came

    to my office one day and told me that we

    have done very well, we also want to say

    same about His Excellency President

    Akufo-Addo because the people in Bodi

    are struggling for water. Mr Speaker, the

    people of Bodi are struggling for water,

    therefore I urge the Government to extend

    water to the people of Bodi so that we can

    also commend the President.

    Mr Speaker, this is an important

    Statement so all of us must celebrate the

    day and pray that the Government would

    get enough resources to not only expand

    water distribution but to provide quality

    water for our people. In conclusion,

    because of the activities of illegal mining,

    treatment of water has become too

    expensive and this is as a result of foreign

    materials that have to be segregated from

    the water. As Ghanaians, we should all

    help to protect our water bodies to ensure

    that meaning is given to the term “water is life” because without water we could not have even been here today.

    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Majority

    Leader is a former Board Chairman of the

    Ghana Water Company so I want to

    believe that during his tenure, he added to

    water production and I believe that the

    new Board Chairman would do his best

    for posterity.

    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for

    the opportunity.
    Mr Patrick Y. Boamah (NPP - Okaikwei Central) 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank
    you very much for the opportunity to
    contribute to this very important
    Statement ably made by the Hon Deputy
    Minister on behalf of the Hon Minister.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to refer you to page
    5 of the Statement where a number of
    projects have been mentioned as being
    part of the Government's overall programme of providing potable water to
    Ghanaians. This Government has been
    very fair to every part of this country in
    terms of water delivery; if we look at the
    table that has been provided on page 5. As
    a matter of fact, the first water project
    under this administration started in the
    Upper East under the former Hon
    Minister, Hon Kofi Adda - May his soul rest in peace. Mr Speaker, it was a €38
    Statements

    million loan that was taken to provide

    water to the good people of the Upper

    East Region and the Government would

    continue to support regions to have access

    to potable water.

    Mr Speaker, if we quantify the projects

    that have been mentioned on page 5 and

    other investments that have so far been

    made by this Government in terms of the

    supply of water, it totals to about US$700

    million. Mr Speaker, as the Board

    Chairman, we would be bringing to the

    House loan facilities for Tarkwa, Begoro

    and Techiman. But I would want to

    admonish Ghanaians who are asking for

    more projects to change our attitudes

    regarding the issues of illegal mining,

    usage of chemicals and other such

    activities. The GWCL is undertaking a lot

    of metering programmes to ensure that

    we get value for the water that we

    produce.

    Mr Speaker, this is a very important

    Statement so I do not want to belabour the

    point raised by the Hon Member who

    made the Statement as well as the

    contributors before me. However, I

    would commend the Government for the

    investments that have been made so far

    and I would also ask that we support the

    programmes of Government to raise

    money and this include tax programmes

    like the E-Levy so that we generate

    enough money to supply water resources

    for the country.

    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members that was the last
    contribution to the Statement.
    Hon Majority Chief Whip?
    Mr Annoh-Dompreh 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to seek your leave to once again vary
    the order of business for us to take the
    item numbered 11 on page 4 of the Order
    Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    But there
    are still Statements that we have already
    agreed to take.
    Mr Annoh-Dompreh 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    yes, we have a couple of Statements to be
    read but we had agreed to do some public
    business after which we would revert. So,
    we can take item numbered 11 on page 4.
    Dr Cassiel A. B. Forson 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    we do not have a problem if we have to
    take the item numbered 11 provided we
    have adequate number of people in the
    Chamber for us to take it. Mr Speaker, it
    is clear that we need a quorum before we
    can take that Motion and that is the clear
    instruction I have.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:24 a.m.
    The
    Clerks-at-the-Table would assist me
    while -
    Statements
    Mr Alexander K. Afenyo-Markin 11:24 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with him but there
    being no application, we beg that the
    Question be put.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, I would take the next
    Statement while the Clerks-at-the-Table
    confirm for me whether I have sufficient
    numbers to take a decision.
    The next Statement is by the Hon
    Member for Agona East, Hon Queenstar
    Maame Pokua Sawyerr.
    Centralisation of Property Rates:
    An Affront to MMDAs in Ghana
    Mrs Queenstar Pokua Sawyerr
    (NDC -- Agona East): Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make this
    Statement.
    Mr Speaker, property rates are one of
    the most promising sources of income to
    accelerate the socio-economic
    transformation in our urban areas in
    Ghana. Levies on the possession of
    immovable assets are one of the most
    viable avenues for raising revenue and are
    critical to achieving local financial
    stability and growth. This avenue has
    however not been much explored to
    harness the development of the country.
    Property rate performance in Ghana
    remains very poor.
    Research by Biitir and Assiamah
    published in 2015, found that property
    rates contribute less than 0.5 per cent of
    the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It accounted for 14 per cent of the
    total revenue of local government
    authorities. This poor performance is also
    a statement to the great potential of
    property rates for revenue generation for
    development.
    Mr Speaker, the Government of Ghana
    in its 2022 Government Financial Policy
    has proposed for the centralisation of the
    collection of property rates. To achieve
    this, a common platform would be
    designed for the collection of property
    rates on behalf of the Metropolitan,
    Municipal and District Assemblies
    (MMDAs). It must be noted, however,
    that section 152 of the Local Governance
    Act, 2016 (Act 936) provides for a
    decentralised system of local governance
    for this country. This Act grants the
    MMDAs the autonomy to plan and
    generate revenue as well as superintend
    development in their administrative
    authorities.
    The decision to centralise the
    collection of property rates and the
    creation of a common platform would
    come with significant challenges. It runs
    counter to efforts made to date by
    successive Governments to decentralise
    governance to the local government level.
    It is likely to result in potential revenue
    being transferred from the MMDAs to the
    Statements

    Central Government. There is little

    evidence that the subsequent

    disbursement of this revenue back to the

    MMDAs would avoid the problems

    associated with existing Central

    Government disbursements. The example

    of the District Assemblies Common Fund

    (DACF) and its associated challenges are

    clear for all to see. These include

    excessive delays in disbursements and the

    politicisation of the usage of the revenue

    generated. One can cite the direction by

    the Akufo-Addo-led Administration to

    re-route DACF transfers to fund the “One Village One Dam” project.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Hon
    Member hold on; kindly resume your
    seat.
    Yes Hon Minister?
    Mrs Ursula Owusu-Ekuful 11:34 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, Statements made by Members
    should not generate debate as provided
    under our Standing Orders.
    By this assertion by the Hon Member
    that the District Assemblies Common
    Fund disbursement challenges include the
    politicisation of the usage of the revenues
    generated - That is a very controversial Statement which is bound to generate
    debate, and I would urge the Hon
    Member to withdraw that part of her
    Statement and continue with the rest.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Yes, Hon
    Member?
    Mrs Comfort Doyoe Cudjoe 11:34 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, before an Hon Member presents
    a Statement, the Hon Member would give
    it to Leadership and Leadership would
    give it to the Speaker to look through
    before a Statement is admitted. So once it
    had been admitted, the Hon Member
    should finish his or her Statement.
    Whatever she knows about any other
    paragraph, she can then do those
    corrections in her contribution.
    Mr Speaker, you admitted the
    Statement; you went through it and
    realised everything was fine before you
    admitted it.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Hon
    Member, let me hear you.
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 11:34 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    thank you very much for the opportunity.
    Mr Speaker, I need your direction - Hon Members make Statements under Order
    72, which reads:
    “By the indulgence of the House and leave of Mr Speaker, a
    Member may, at the time
    appointed for Statements under
    Standing Order 53 (Order of
    Statements

    Business) explain a matter of

    personal nature or make a

    Statement on a matter of urgent

    public importance. Any

    Statement other than a personal

    Statement may be commented

    upon by other Members for a

    limited duration of time not

    exceeding one hour. The terms of

    any such proposed Statement

    shall first be submitted to Mr

    Speaker.”

    Mr Speaker, we always confuse this

    Standing Order with a Statement made

    under Standing Order 70 (2), which

    reads:

    “A Minister of State may make an announcement or Statement of

    government policy. Any such

    announcement or Statement

    should be limited to facts which it

    is deemed necessary to make

    known to the House and should

    not be designed to provoke debate

    at this stage. Any Member may

    comment briefly, subject to the

    same limitation.”

    So Mr Speaker, clearly in terms of

    Statements provoking debate, there is a

    clear distinction between Statements

    made by a Member under Standing Order

    72 and one made by a Minister under

    Standing Order 70 (2). So we should not

    be confusing the two. It is in this vein that

    I am inviting your direction based on the

    objection raised by the Hon Minister for

    Communications and Digitalisation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:34 a.m.
    Very
    well, the Statement has been admitted by
    Mr Speaker and the Hon Member should
    continue to read the Statement.
    Mrs Sawyerr 11:34 a.m.
    Thank you, Mr
    Speaker.
    Mr Speaker, yet, another difficulty
    with the centralisation of property rate
    collection is that if and when the country
    chooses to elect its Metropolitan,
    Municipal and District Chief Executive
    Officers (MMDCEs), they would be left
    virtually impotent as almost all major
    sources of revenue generation would
    have been removed from them. Their
    performance would still be dictated by
    Central Government.
    Mr Speaker, there are inherent
    problems with the collection of property
    rates at the local level that need to be
    resolved. There is the need to ensure that
    property rates commensurate with the
    value of existing properties. The methods
    of valuation must be transparent to all.
    There must be justification for increases
    in the rates. There are instances where in
    successive years the rate has doubled
    without any clear explanation. Resolving
    these issues would gain the ‘buy-in' of businesses and citizens and thus lead to
    the successful collection of rates at the
    local level.
    Statements

    Mr Speaker, there is no question that the MMDAs need to have their capacities significantly enhanced to undertake rate collections at the local level. This could be done through the re-organisation of the local structures to bring in more qualified or competent personnel or where necessary entering into partnerships with the private sector to enable them meet and even exceed collection targets.

    Mr Speaker, a decentralised collection of property rates by the MMDAs is the way forward. When we create the enabling environment and provide the right leadership for MMDAs to thrive, they would be deemed as accountable and legitimate. This means that citizens can rely on them to provide services of value. They would be willing to pay rather than evade the property tax. The MMDAs on the other hand must be willing to prosecute defaulters and avoid exercising discretion in the tax liabilities of property owners. The future of MMDA governance depends on a tax policy that is workable, equitable, that which improves local service delivery and also encourages cooperation between the taxpayers and the State for development.

    Mr Speaker, thank you once again for the opportunity given me to make this Statement.
    Mr Osei Bonsu Amoah (NPP - Akwapim South) 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Statement made by the Hon Member regarding property rates.
    Mr Speaker, as the Hon Member has stated, property rates are supposed to contribute to the generation of revenue. Over the years, it has been obvious that we can do better in the collection of property rates than what we are doing. Indeed, if the statistics quoted are to be believed, we end up collecting less than 1 per cent of what we are capable of collecting. It is in this direction that the Government in this policy decided that the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) should assist the assemblies in the collection of property rates; it is not to take over the collection of property rates.
    The Minister for Finance, in the Budget Statement, was very clear that indeed, the GRA is to assist the Assemblies in the collection of property rates. For that matter, the collection has not been centralised. There were three policy statements in the Budget:
    one, the need to have a uniform platform to assist in the collection of property rates;
    two, to continue with what the
    Ministry of Local Government,
    Decentralisation and Rural
    Development and German
    Agency for International
    Cooperation (GIZ) have been
    doing regarding what we call
    Disaster Risk Finance (DRF) to
    provide software for the
    Assemblies for them to enhance
    collection of rates and taxes
    including business permits; and
    Statements

    the third, for the GRA to assist in

    the collection of property rates

    and for a certain ratio to be agreed

    to be shared.

    Mr Speaker, as we speak, the Ministry

    has had several meetings with GRA. A

    technical committee has been formed,

    modalities have been agreed upon and

    there is a major meeting tomorrow for us

    to agree on some of these decisions. All

    things being equal, by 1st April, 2022, we

    should pilot this arrangement. It is the

    belief of Government that if we are able

    to carry this through, it would go very far

    in achieving what we need to do as far as

    property rate collection is concerned.

    Mr Speaker, as the Hon Member who

    made the Statement has conceded, there

    is the need for the problems associated

    with property rates at the local level to be

    resolved. There is also the need to ensure

    that property rates commensurate the

    system values of properties. Indeed, if we

    identify some of these properties in major

    cities and towns, the fact that the values

    on them are so low, owners of properties

    complain that the kind of rates imposed

    on these properties are unrealistic.

    In fact, if we go to affluent

    communities, the kind of properties in

    these communities and rates the

    Assemblies impose on these

    communities, and the difficulties they

    encounter in the collection of these rates.

    One would find a big mansion, like the

    mansion of the Hon Member who made

    the Statement, and one would realise that

    the assemblies would have imposed about

    GHȻ100.00 for a whole year. Sometimes, GHȻ500.00 - [Interruption] - Hon Ursula Owusu-Ekuful says that even

    GHȻ10 a month, which would mean that for the whole year, a person would be

    fined GHȻ120.00 for big properties. Mr Speaker, that is most unacceptable.

    Beyond that, even the collection is an

    issue. The software to be able to identify

    these properties for us to impose the right

    rates needs to be upgraded.

    Number two, beyond the assessment,

    we should be able to pursue collection to

    the extent of even prosecuting those who

    default in payment; all these things are

    lacking. In collaboration with GRA and

    other institutions in the private sector, we

    believe that we can go very far in

    addressing this issue, but the major issue

    is that it is all centralisation of the

    collection. The Assemblies will still play

    a key role in the collection of these

    property rates. We are just enhancing

    their ability to collect and to also enforce

    the collection to the extent of even

    prosecuting to ensure that we get the right

    revenue to enable us develop this country.

    Mr Speaker, we thank the Hon

    Member for her Statement, except that a

    few areas are a bit controversial and

    inaccurate. On the whole, I believe she

    has drawn our attention to the fact that

    this is an area we should focus on. As a

    Ministry, we have gone very far in

    Statements

    addressing this issue, and complying with

    the Cabinet decision that this is the way

    to go.
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    I will call
    the former District Chief Executive
    (DCE).
    Mr Thomas Nyarko Ampem (NDC
    - Asuogyaman): Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to
    contribute to this wonderful Statement
    made by the Member of Parliament who
    represents the people of Agona East.

    Mr Speaker, this Statement is also

    timely, because the issue of property rate

    is one that we all need to pay attention to

    because of the intentions of this

    Government.

    Mr Speaker, in the Seventh

    Parliament, the Committee on Local

    Government and Rural Development

    embarked on monitoring tour to many of

    the MMDAs. A key issue that came up

    was that of their Internally Generated

    Fund (IGF). We saw a huge challenge in

    the collection of property rates. It is

    important to note that whereas in most of

    the urban assemblies, the metropolitan

    and a few of the municipal assemblies,

    property rate is the most important source

    of their IGF, but the story is different

    when one moves to many of the rural

    assemblies; they are not able to collect

    their property rates.

    11. 54 a.m.

    Mr Speaker, one key issue that we

    realised is that they are unable to collect

    the property rates because of the

    difficulty of the valuation of the

    properties. It is very expensive to value

    the properties, and so most of these

    assemblies use “the unassessed rates”. They just determine some arbitrary

    figure, and they charge the property

    owners. Aside that, they are also unable

    to actually collect most of them so it was

    a welcoming news to hear that

    Government would want to “assist” the assemblies in the collection of property

    rates. That is how the Minister for

    Finance puts it. However, if you look at

    the Government's actions and all the issues that are coming up, you clearly see

    that they do not intend to assist the

    assemblies in the collection of the

    property rates, but to take over its

    collection. When we engaged officials of

    the Ministry of Local Government,

    Decentralisation and Rural Development,

    they could not even tell us what the

    sharing ratio would be.

    However, at a meeting with the

    Finance Committee and the Ghana

    Revenue Authority (GRA), they

    indicated that so far, the discussions are

    that the central Government would take

    60 per cent and 40 per cent would be sent

    to the assemblies even though they

    Statements

    concluded that those discussions are not

    conclusive. Mr Speaker, up to date —
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    Hon
    Member hold on.
    Hon Deputy Minister, do you want to
    take 60 per cent of the money?
    Mrs Abena Osei-Asare 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    that is not true. We have not concluded on
    that.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    It better be
    not because as for that one, I would join
    in the fight.
    Mrs Osei-Asare 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I know
    that.
    Mr Ampem 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, is the Hon
    Deputy Minster telling us that it was not
    true that the GRA told us that at the
    Finance Committee meeting or it is not
    true that that is the position of —?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    Hon
    Member, she said that was not the
    position of the Ministry.
    Mr Ampem 11:44 a.m.
    All right, then I am very
    happy to hear from the Hon Deputy
    Minister for Finance that that is not the
    position of Government. That is
    refreshing news, and it must be on record.
    Mr Speaker, the GIZ has supported a
    number of assemblies in developing their
    capacities and softwares to help them in

    rose
    Mr Ampem 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon
    good Friend Mrs Osei-Asare does not
    want me to flow.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    Hon
    Member, continue.
    Mr Ampem 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the GIZ
    has actually pumped in a lot of money to
    support a number of assemblies to
    develop their capacities, and to get
    softwares that would help them in the
    collection of property rates. As we speak
    now, we do not know when this would
    start.
    Mr Speaker, what is even worrying is
    that Government's intention to take over the collection of property rates was
    communicated too late. All the
    assemblies had already prepared their
    budgets, and had made projections of
    their Internally Generated Funds (IGFS)
    including amounts that they expected to
    collect from property rates. So, it was
    disturbing to see Government come out
    with this announcement after the
    assemblies had started with the collection
    of property rates. The Ministry of Local
    Government, Decentralisation and Rural
    Development then had to send directives
    Statements

    to the assemblies to cease the collection

    of property rates because of these

    intentions by Government. In my view, if

    Government has certain intentions, they

    must make it clear, and make sure that the

    processes are followed through. Any

    attempt to take over the collection of

    property rates would be fiercely resisted

    by those of us on the Minority side. If

    Government wants to assist the

    assemblies, then it should be pure

    assistance.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    Hon
    Member, if you want to resist, make your
    own Statement; now, contribute to this
    Statement.
    Mr Ampem 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am
    concluding and serving notice.
    Mr Speaker, we would want to
    encourage Government to assist the
    assemblies in the areas of valuation of the
    properties, and also in any technical
    support that the assemblies would require
    for the collection of these property rates.
    Also, if Government intends to collect
    these property rates, and put them in a
    centralised account before disbursing to
    the various assemblies what is due them,
    it would be problematic because of what
    we have witnessed with the issue of the
    District Assemblies Common Fund
    (DACF). They delay, so if the important
    source of revenue to the assemblies
    would also come to the centre, and
    Government, at its own convenience,
    would then decide when it is sent to the
    assemblies, it would starve the assemblies
    of development, and that would be a
    serious problem.
    Deputy Minister for Finance (Mrs
    Abena Osei-Asare) (MP): Mr Speaker,
    I would want to thank you for the
    opportunity to contribute to the Statement
    on the Floor.
    Mr Speaker, in the year 2022, as part
    of the measures to help Government raise
    more revenue, Government sought to
    bring efficient measures into the
    collection of property rates, and as part of
    that, Government said they would, among
    other things, partner GRA to raise the
    needed revenue. Currently, our tax to
    GDP ratio is around 13.4 per cent, and we
    hope that with some of these efficient
    measures, we would be able to improve it
    to almost 20 per cent by the year 2024.
    Mr Speaker, as part of that,
    Government sought to collaborate with
    GRA, the Ministry of Local Government,
    Decentralisation and Rural Development
    as well as the districts to bring in efficient
    measures to collect these revenues. What
    Government intends to do will increase
    the amount of property rates that we
    collect every year by more than four
    folds. Sometimes, we forget that whether
    it is property rates or public funds, they
    are all public funds, and are subject to the
    rules of the Public Financial Management
    Act (PFMA). So, what Government is
    doing is to ensure the efficient use of the
    revenues that are collected, and that is
    Statements

    clearly what it is supposed to be. Mr

    Speaker, IGF is also part of public funds,

    and so, we should take note of that and

    not always see property rates as different

    financing from public financing. IGF is

    part of public financing, and Government

    would subject it to PFMA or the way

    public finances are used.

    Mr Speaker, it is just a way of

    introducing efficient measures in the

    collection of IGF, which is part of public

    funds, and this would be channelled to the

    assemblies to use it to bring about

    development. So, we should not confuse

    ourselves with the fact that IGF is not part

    of public funds. It is part of public funds,

    and it is subject to the dictates of how we

    manage them.

    Mr Speaker, with these few words, I

    would want to assure my Brothers and

    Sisters on the other Side that Government

    is looking at efficient ways of raising

    more revenue to enable all of us benefit

    from developments that we always talk

    about.
    Mr Benjamin Komla Kpodo (NDC - Ho Central) 11:44 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want
    to let our Hon Deputy Minister for
    Finance know clearly that by her
    contribution to the Statement, she has
    exposed the intention of Government. In
    the 2022 Budget Statement, the
    Government budgeted an amount of
    GH₵680 million as revenue for the centre. So, there is no doubt about
    Government's intention to take the
    revenue from property rates from the
    assemblies to the centre; it is another way
    of capping. The thing is in the 2022
    Budget Statement that they want to raise
    an amount of GH₵680 million for the central Government.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to quote the
    provisions in the Constitution regarding
    the property rates for the Assemblies. Mr
    Speaker, for clarity, I plead with you to
    allow me to read the entire article 245. It
    says, and I quote:
    12. 04 p.m.
    “Parliament shall, by law, prescribe the functions of the
    District Assemblies which shall
    include -
    (a)the formulation and the
    execution of plans,
    programmes and
    strategies for the
    effective mobilization of
    the resources necessary
    for the overall
    development of the
    district;
    (b)the levying and
    collection of taxes, rates, duties and fees.”
    The Constitution is very clear that the
    collection of rates, levies and taxes is the responsibility of the district assemblies. So, if the Government comes in and says
    Statements

    that they can assist to collect the revenue, and they put it in the annual Budget Statement that they are going to earn GH₵680 million from that source, then, what are they telling Ghanaians?

    Even the word ‘assist' is deceptive. Government wants to collect the money

    but they say that would assist the district

    assemblies to collect it and then they take

    it away. Where comes the formula for

    distributing something which should not

    be yours in the first place? Government

    should not put its hands in it.

    I think that if the Central Government

    is curious about how property rates are

    collected, they should let GRA train the

    revenue officers in the districts to do it so

    that they would not have any hand in

    taking the money.

    Mr Speaker, the problem is that once

    money gets to the centre, getting it to the

    various districts becomes a problem. It is

    gone. If one just looks at the DACF,

    which we have been fighting over, the

    Constitution is very clear in article 252(2)

    that when Government collects revenue

    that must go to the district assemblies,

    they should take five per cent, and give

    out to districts, but they have failed to do

    that. The whole of 2021, they never

    released one pesewa and they are forcing

    the DACF to the borrow money in order

    to disburse to the district assemblies.

    Now, they want to take the rates on

    properties in the districts also to the

    centre and that they are going to develop

    a formula for sharing it after it has been

    collected.

    Mr Speaker, please, let nobody have

    any doubt about the intention of Central

    Government; it just wants to take the

    property rates, bring it to the centre, and

    spend it as it wishes. We would not

    support that. When we met as the

    Committee on Local Government, and

    Rural Development to consider the

    Budget Statement, we told the Minister

    that this would not be acceptable to the

    districts. Civil and Local Government

    Staff Association, Ghana (CLOGSAG)

    told us that they would not allow the

    Central Government to come and collect

    the property rates. So, we should not enter

    the arena of constitutional conflicts any

    longer because if the Central Government

    wishes to take property rates from the

    assemblies, we would have to resort to the

    courts to get the money back to the

    assemblies.

    Deputy Minister for Local

    Government, Decentralisation and

    Rural Development (Mr Augustine

    Collins Ntim) (MP): Thank you, Mr

    Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to

    contribute to the Statement ably made by

    the Hon Member of Parliament for Agona

    East trying to draw the attention of the

    Ministry on what we are doing to address

    Statements

    the issues of property rates. I think that it

    has come at the right time.

    Mr Speaker, Governments over the

    years try to develop systems and

    strategies to develop the facets of every

    community in Ghana through the

    decentralised system.

    We do that through a series of

    arrangements that would raise moneys to

    implement those programmes. One of the

    strategies of raising moneys for the

    assemblies include levies, taxes and rates,

    and that aspect has been ceded to the local

    government system which has been

    working over the years.

    Mr Speaker, but one of the heritable

    sources of revenue has been the property

    rates, and over the years, research by the

    Ministry has indicated that the potential is

    huge, but they are not able to raise even

    0.5 per cent of it., and even those

    assemblies that are able to achieve that

    are within urban settings. Essentially, it is

    because of the capacity in terms of getting

    the resources to value - the valuation of those properties and then even identifying

    those properties.

    Government, through the Budget

    Statement, wants to develop the capacity

    of the assemblies using instruments and

    logistics of GRA to train the assemblies

    and get involved so that they would be

    able to digitise and also address the

    challenges of property rating. At the end

    of the day, the system that would be

    established would address the property

    rate challenge gap. This system would

    identify those properties, and also

    develop the capacities of the assemblies

    to rake in all the rateable items so that

    they have a huge amount of money. They

    can also have a system that would not

    only capture the huge properties within

    the municipalities, but having collected

    revenues in the municipalities, they may

    also have to think about those less-

    endowed districts which would not even

    be able to generate revenue of GH₵100 or GH₵1,000 per year. So we seek a formula that would ensure there is parity

    in the sharing formula so that --
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    Hon
    Deputy Minister, let me understand you.
    For example, when property rate is
    collected in Offinso South, but the rate
    which is collected at Offinso North is not
    sufficient, you merge them and share it
    equally? Is that the suggestion?
    Mr Ntim 11:44 a.m.
    Rightly so, Mr Speaker. It
    is just the same way as we share revenues
    from oil, cocoa, and shea butter. These
    are some of the things that we are
    discussing - the formula to generate the resources, and how we would share to
    bring equity within the system.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 11:44 a.m.
    Well,
    there is no policy before us, but I would
    Statements

    want to encourage you to re-think that

    because the more developed a community

    is, the more expensive it is to be managed

    - the more population; the more filth and the more frequent breakdown of facilities.

    So, if you collect revenue at Bekwai, keep

    it at Bekwai. What you collect at Offinso

    North, keep it there. Do not bring this

    equity matter in this one at all. [Hear!
    Mr Ntim 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, that is one of
    the proposals the Ministry is also
    considering, but beyond that, we think
    that the less-endowed districts should
    also be considered in the generation of the
    revenue and the sharing formula. As we
    speak, there is a meeting being held at the
    Ministry involving the GRA, Land Use
    and Spatial Planning Authority (LUSPA),
    and all the necessary stakeholders
    including the district assemblies
    themselves to consider how we would be
    able to optimise the collection.
    Mr Speaker, the emphasis now is
    about how we would come up with the
    systems and instruments to optimise the
    collection because over the years, the
    properties have been there, yet we have
    not been collecting the rates. Do we
    continue on that tangent as we do not
    have money to develop? We need the
    money to develop our communities. What
    is the gap? What are the strategies? The
    strategies are that we need to identify,
    digitise and evaluate the properties. We
    also need to develop the capacities of the
    district assemblies, and partner with the
    Government instrument, GRA, so that as
    they develop a new system and capacities
    to rake in more money, then, the
    assemblies' capacities would have been developed after years of practice, and
    they would be able to stay on their own.

    So, it would bring more money and

    efficiency into the system, and develop

    the capacity in a much more sustainable

    manner so that they may not have to bring

    in any additional institution to come in to

    train.

    Mr Speaker, it is not an issue of the

    Central Government taking over the

    collection of property rate, but it is a

    question of bringing innovative

    principles, digitalisation and capacity

    building through the GRA to help the

    Assemblies equip themselves and sustain

    the intervention so that we would have

    more resources. Hon Queenstar Pokua

    Sawyerr, the things that we need in

    Agona East and Offinso North Assembly

    - they are sitting on the money and are unable to tap it. We need to develop their

    capacities. Government is coming out

    with new innovations such as the E-Levy

    and others. These are new interventions

    and so, I find it difficult to accept

    comments like “over centralisation” and for that matter, you would resist. Would

    you resist instruments, systems and

    Statements

    technologies that will generate money so

    that the District Assemblies, including

    your Assembly, would have more

    resources? Regarding the kind of things

    that we need in our Assemblies,

    governments, over the years, have been

    unable to collect the resources through

    the Assemblies. We are generating

    systems, instruments and embarking on

    digitalisation to generate more resources,

    so that we can have more to give to the

    people and you would want to resist that?

    Is that what you are saying? Hon Kpodo,

    is that what you are saying? We need

    more money.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon
    Deputy Minister, please conclude?
    Mr Ntim 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in concluding,
    it is a good thing. It is a novelty and
    constitutional and it would generate more
    money. Therefore, I would want to urge
    my Hon Colleagues on the Other side to
    support it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon
    Kwabena Donkor, I am giving you the
    last word. Hon Members of the
    Committee on Local Government and
    Rural Development, you all have had one
    - 12:14 p.m.

    Mr Edwin Nii Lantey Vanderpuye 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon Kwabena Donkor has
    yielded to me.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon
    Vanderpuye, I have not recognised you.
    Why is it that only members from the
    Committee on Local Government and
    Rural Development want to talk on this
    matter?
    Mr Vanderpuye 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Hon
    Kwabena Donkor has yielded to me.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon
    Members of the Committee on Local
    Government and Rural Development you
    have discussed all the issues. Are you the
    only people who want to contribute?
    Mr Vanderpuye 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am
    not only on the Committee on Local
    Government and Rural Development; I
    am also coming in as a former Deputy
    Minister for Local Government and Rural
    Development.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    It
    emphasises what you already know.
    Mr Vanderpuye 12:14 p.m.
    I would want to
    help with the issue raised. I would want
    to assist in a better way.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    All right,
    let me hear you.
    Mr Edwin Nii Lantey Vanderpuye
    (NDC - Odododiodioo): Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity
    to contribute to the Statement ably made
    by the Hon Member of Parliament (MP)
    for Agona East.
    Mr Speaker, this issue of property rate
    collection is also another step towards a
    ditch because just as we have seen in this
    Statements

    House with the controversial issue of the

    E-Levy, proper consultations were not

    made, and as such, after the debacle, the

    Ministry of Finance had to go round the

    country and conduct town hall meetings.

    It is the same with the property rate issue.

    All the stakeholders in the property rate

    administration - Chamber for LOCAL Governance (ChaLog), District

    Assemblies, National Association of

    Local Government Authorities of Ghana

    (NALAG) and Civil Society

    Organisations - have issued statements about the attempt of Government to

    centralise an activity of the District

    Assemblies within a decentralised

    system.

    Under our 1992 Constitution, we have

    accepted to practise decentralisation. We

    do not know why this Government would

    want to go back to centralization? We

    have lamented severely about the issue of

    dissolving responsibilities without

    physical responsibility. Today, the only

    physical space that the Assemblies have

    through which they generate revenue in

    order to embark on their developmental

    activities is also being taken over by the

    central administration.

    Mr Speaker, what we have seen over

    the period is that -
    rose
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, kindly hold on. Yes, Hon
    Deputy Minister for Local Government,
    Decentralisation and Rural Development,
    please point me to what is wrong -
    Mr Ntim 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you for
    indulging me. The Hon MP for
    Odododiodioo and the Ranking Member
    for the Committee on Local Government
    and Rural Development is seriously
    misleading the House by saying that
    CSOs and NALAG have issued a
    statement to the effect that Government is
    attempting to centralise the Assemblies,
    and it is something they do not want. That
    is a palpably false statement. On the
    contrary, NALAG has issued a statement
    in favour of the intentions of
    Government, and we have copies; it is
    here. So, you are misleading the House.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, be guided.
    Mr Vanderpuye 12:14 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when
    we met the Ministry of Local
    Government, Decentralisation and Rural
    Development, they did not have any idea
    about the policy. They said they would
    consult and come back to inform us. The
    reference is the Report of the Committee
    on Local Government and Rural
    Development on the Budget and
    Financial Statement of the Ministry of
    Local Government, Decentralisation and
    Rural Development. We came to the
    conclusion that the issue of property rate
    should be suspended for further
    consultation because the Ministry was
    unaware of the mechanisms and the
    strategies to be used for this collection. It
    Statements

    is in the Report; it is in the Hansard, we

    can all check it.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Hon
    Vanderpuye, are you contributing to the
    debate or you are engaging with -?
    Mr Vanderpuye 12:14 p.m.
    Yes, I am
    contributing to the Statement.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:14 p.m.
    Can you
    contribute to the Statement?
    Mr Vanderpuye 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in the
    Report of the Committee on Local
    Government and Rural Development on
    the 2022 Budget Statement and of the
    Government Economic Policy, which is
    also in the Hansard and the House can
    refer to it, as far back as 1994, successive
    governments have decided that in order to
    maximise the gains of property rate
    collection, we must go back to street
    naming and property addressing.
    This work started and continued over
    the period, and has got to where we have
    only the issue of the Unique Plug
    Numbering (UPN), and that exercise has
    begun in the Assemblies. With the new
    digitalised system we have in the country,
    every property today is almost captured.
    The few ones that have not been captured
    are those that are now being developed
    and it is incumbent on Assemblies to have
    the systems to be able to capture them.
    Assisting the Assemblies to capture
    them is not about taking over the
    responsibility; it is about human capacity
    building and provision of logistics. We
    should provide them with the logistics
    they need, build the capacity of the people
    who are already employed there, and not
    take over collection from the local system
    and hand it over to GRA.
    Secondly, GRA as it stands today, is
    not decentralised in every part of the
    country, but the Assemblies have the
    system to reach every hamlet, house and
    town. Why do we not build the capacities
    of the Assemblies to make them more
    efficient in the collection?
    Finally, the issue about property
    collection amounts to what Hon Nyarko
    Ampem said. When I was an Assembly
    Member in the Accra Metropolitan
    Assembly (AMA) in 1994, in order to
    maximise our property rate, the Assembly
    had to take a loan and revalue all
    properties within its jurisdiction. Today,
    the various Assemblies have not got the
    capacity to have that money to do the
    revaluation. If Government wants to
    make money out of the property rate
    system, Government should assist the
    Assemblies to have the money to revalue.
    The Land Valuation Division is a
    government institution, but it charges
    huge amount of money that Assemblies
    cannot afford. Why would Government
    not come in and negotiate with the Land
    Valuation Division in order to reduce the
    amount of money they are charging the
    Assemblies so that the Assemblies can
    have the capacity to pay for the services
    Statements

    they are rendering in the revaluation of

    properties?

    From the World Bank, the Tema

    Metropolitan Assembly (TMA) revalued

    all properties, and their revenue upflow

    increased by 300 per cent without GRA

    doing the collection.

    With assistance from GIZ, the

    Tarkwa-Nsuaem Municipal Assembly

    had the opportunity to revalue all

    properties within their jurisdiction. Their

    the property rate collection increased by

    500 per cent without the GRA and the

    Central Government's involvement.

    Mr Speaker, if the Central

    Government really means well, and not to

    use another avenue for capping, they

    should empower the local Assemblies

    through logistical support and capacity

    building, and also revalue properties so

    that they can collect more and be able to

    embark upon the needed developmental

    projects in the Districts.

    Mr Speaker, it is not for Government

    and GRA to collect property rates and

    take 60 per cent of the already

    impoverished revenue outflows of the

    various District Assemblies. This is

    disingenuous, and it is not right. As a

    House, we should not support this

    initiative, and should rather ask

    Government to help the Assemblies to

    revalue all the properties within their

    jurisdiction within a timeframe.

    Government should take over the

    expenditure of the revaluation and later

    deduct it from whatever revenue that

    would be generated by the Assemblies.

    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Does
    Leadership wish to comment on this
    Statement?
    Dr Cassiel A. B. Forson (NDC - Ajumako/Enyan/Esiam) 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    thank you very much for the opportunity
    given me to also comment on the
    Statement that was brought to the
    attention of Hon Members by the Hon
    Member for Agona East.
    Mr Speaker, it is a fact that the issue
    regarding revenues from the District
    Assemblies is important to all of us as
    Hon MPs. If our Assemblies perform
    well, it is to our advantage and so, a
    matter of this nature needs to be discussed
    by us in a way that does not politicises it,
    but rather discusse it issue of policy.
    Mr Speaker, the issue we are
    discussing has a constitutional obligation,
    and I would refer you to article 245(b) of
    the 1992 Constitution which provides as
    follows :
    “Parliament shall, by law, prescribe the functions of the
    Statements

    District Assemblies which shall

    include - b. the levying and

    collection of taxes, rates,

    duties and fees.”

    Mr Speaker, clearly, it is only the

    District Assemblies that can collect

    property rate, and use it for the purpose of

    developing the Districts. In my view, the

    issue of Government getting involved is

    good, but my concern is, at what cost to

    the Assemblies? Would the Government

    take a lot of the revenue from the District

    Assemblies or the money would stay with

    the Assemblies?

    Mr Speaker, these are what we should

    be interested in. It will sadden you to note

    that in Appendix 3B on page 225 of the

    2022 Budget Statement, this Government

    has decided to take an amount of GH₵468 million out of the property rate that would

    be collected at the Assembly level for the

    centre. Mr Speaker, this is the Budget

    Statement, and I am making reference to

    Appendix 3B, so one cannot just shake the

    head and say no without making

    referencing to the Budget Statement. I am

    making reference to the Budget

    Statement.

    Mr Speaker, it states that property rate

    collection as part of non-tax revenue for

    the year 2022, would accrue an amount of

    GH₵468 million to the Central Government. We need to see the District

    Assemblies' Common Fund (DACF) formula for us to indicate clearly that that

    amount should not be part of Central

    Government's activities. I believe that the rates that the District Assemblies collect

    should stay at the Assemblies. I know

    Government wants to involve GRA, but at

    what cost? I know a private company is

    coming in but at what cost? We should be

    interested in the cost, and not just the

    policy of collecting the revenue.

    Mr Speaker, I believe there is the need

    for this Government to assist the District

    Assemblies in collecting the revenue, but

    I do not believe that in helping them to

    collect the revenue, that amount must go

    to the Central Government. It should

    indeed stay at the Assemblies for the

    purposes of development which I believe

    all of us, the 275 MPs care that our

    Assemblies in particular, should be

    empowered in a way that they can perform

    the functions that sometimes, MPs are

    called upon to use their meagre DACF to

    do.

    Mr Speaker, to conclude on this matter,

    I strongly believe that the Hon Minister

    for Local Government, Decentralisation

    and Rural Development, who luckily is

    also our Hon Colleague, should be given

    the opportunity to appear before us to give

    a policy brief on this matter. Mr Speaker,

    this is an important matter so I urge you

    to use your good Office to invite the Hon

    Minister to appear before us, and give us

    Statements

    a policy brief. This, I believe, would go a

    long way to educate us as MPs in line with

    what the Government intends to do.

    Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Does the
    Majority bench wish to comment?
    Very well, I think it is important at this
    point that we invite the Hon Minister for
    Local Government, Decentralisation and
    Rural Development to come and brief the
    House on the implementation of this
    policy so that all issues concerning the
    issue would be put to rest. I so direct the
    Table Office to inform the Hon Minister
    and programme him to appear before the
    House and brief us on this matter.
    Mr Frank Annoh-Dompreh 12:24 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, with your indulgence, I guess we
    can now go back to the item numbered 11
    on page 4?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Very well,
    at the Commencement of Public Business,
    we shall take the item numbered 11,
    Motion - a Question to be put.
    Mr Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise on a very important
    matter of quorum, and I do so pursuant to
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, kindly hold on. I will put the
    Question. After the vote, you can ask for
    a recount. I am guided by what I asked to
    be done. It has been done.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with
    all due respect, even before the decision is
    taken - [Interruption] [Some Hon Members: Sit down!] I am raising a very
    important matter.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, I am guided by Standing Order
    109(1) which states that no Question shall
    be put unless at least one-half of all MPs
    are present, so I asked the Table Office to
    verify for me, and I am satisfied with it
    that the number is half. Permit me to put
    the Question.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, with
    all due respect, Standing Order 109 has
    been struck out of our Standing Orders
    pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in
    the undecided case of Justice Abdulai v
    Attorney-General. We cannot, as a House
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, you are a lawyer. Speak to facts.
    Standing Order 109(3) was struck out not
    Standing Order 109.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker—
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    You are
    out of order.
    Statements
    MOTIONS 12:24 p.m.

    Mr Annoh-Dompreh 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    with your leave, we should go on to page
    15 on the Order Paper, and take item
    numbered 23.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:24 p.m.
    Hon
    Members -
    Mr Annoh-Dompreh 12:24 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    we should take item numbered 12 on page
    4 instead. I seek your leave for the Hon
    Deputy Minister for Finance to move the
    Motion.
    RESOLUTIONS 12:24 p.m.

    WHEREAS 12:24 p.m.

    THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE 12:24 p.m.

    HEREBY RESOLVES AS 12:24 p.m.

    Mr Annoh-Dompreh 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    we should go to page 15.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Yes, the
    Hon available Leader?
    Dr Cassiel Ato Baah Forson 12:34 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, it is important for us to keep the
    sanctity of the House and most
    importantly, to ensure that the decision
    that we are taking is in line with the 1992
    Constitution and our Standing Orders.
    Mr Speaker, my Colleague, the Hon
    Member for South Dayi has been on his
    feet for some time. I urged that if
    possible, you listen to him, so that the
    issues he is raising are discussed. So that
    if indeed, we have the numbers to take the
    decision, we take the decision adequately,
    but if we do not have the numbers to take
    the decision, then we would advise
    ourselves. Mr Speaker, it is important that
    you make that determination.
    Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Hon
    available Leader, I gave the Hon Member
    for South Dayi the opportunity, he raised
    the issues and I drew his attention to it.
    You were all in the Chamber when I
    asked the Table Office to count for me.
    Before I put the Question, I deferred the
    issue and allowed the debate. It was when
    I was informed that I have the numbers to
    take a decision that I put the Question. So,
    if he has any other matter, I would listen
    to him. That is why I deferred to you as
    the available Leader.
    Dr Forson 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, your
    instruction to him was for him to sit for
    you to put the Question, and if he has any
    other consideration, he would put it
    before you. After you put the Question,
    he stood up, and I am only saying that it
    is only fair that you listen to him. If he has
    something, he can come back to you
    again.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    After I
    asked him to sit, at no point did he sit
    down, so it did not appear to me that he
    was raising a new matter. It was the same
    matter that he was repeating, a matter on
    which I had given a ruling, so please let
    us proceed.
    Yes?
    Mr Annoh-Dompreh 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    we should go to page 15 of today's Order Paper and take item numbered 23.
    GoG-KfW Loan Agreement
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Yes, Hon
    Member for South Dayi, what issue do
    you wish to raise?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 12:34 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the
    House has just been moved under Motion
    numbered 11 for a decision to be taken
    and the House has just taken a decision. I
    am raising an issue of legality pursuant to
    article 104 of the 1992 Constitution. I am
    further fortified in the recent decision of
    the Supreme Court in the matter of
    Justice Abdulai v Attorney-General.
    May I refer the House to page 19 of the
    said judgment, and particularly from
    paragraph 2. The Supreme Court had this
    to say about quorum and with your leave,
    it says:
    “The rationale for having two separate quorum provisions is
    simple. The business of
    Parliament is diverse. Parliament
    is, first and foremost, a
    deliberative Chamber, where
    Members meet to debate and
    discuss various matters of public
    moment. For that deliberative
    function, when Members are not
    yet called upon to vote to decide
    or determine a matter (e.g.,
    approve a proposed contract or a
    bill) but merely to discuss or
    debate it, the Constitution, per
    Article 102, sets a lower quorum
    threshold, that is, one-third of the
    full membership of Parliament - not counting any member (Deputy
    Speaker) who may be presiding at
    the time. However, where
    Parliament must exercise its
    legislative power to decide or
    determine a matter before it, the
    Constitution sets a higher quorum
    threshold, requiring, in that
    instance, at least half of all the
    members of Parliament to be
    present before a vote can be
    taken.”
    Mr Speaker, I submit that at the time that the Question was put and a voice vote was carried, we were 98 Members in this Chamber. Pursuant to this, I move that the decision that we recently took is invalid on the grounds that there was a lack of decision-making quorum. I am therefore challenging the ruling that the Ayes had the vote pursuant to Motion numbered 11. I am further praying the House for a headcount on the matter.
    Thank you.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:34 p.m.
    Yes, do you want to respond? This is an application to me and I do not know what - Yes, Hon Member for Akatsi South?
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity.
    We have all been in this House for some time and when a Member is on his feet, with all due respect, you allow that Member to make his or her submission and the law lies in your bosom to give a ruling. I however realised that when I was on my feet and Hon Rockson-Nelson
    GoG-KfW Loan Agreement

    Dafeamekpor was also on his feet, we were not recognised.

    Mr Speaker saw me and made a signal

    which I am not in favour of. The issue of

    article 104 is a matter of fact. If we are

    more than half of the number as required

    by law, this is a matter of fact and any

    time the issue crops up, the Clerks-at-the-

    Table would help us and announce to

    everybody that this is the number that we

    have in the House. Then everybody is

    seized with the fact that we have the

    number to do business and as such, we are

    doing business. The issue of somebody

    counting 98 and somebody counting

    more than 138 would not have been there.

    Mr Speaker, even where a vote is put,

    a Member can challenge the vote and call

    for a division. It is a procedural

    requirement under the rules. However, to

    shut the door completely, I must indicate

    that I am not happy.

    Mrs Comfort Doyoe Cudjoe

    Ghansah: Mr Speaker, thank you for the

    opportunity to add my voice to the issue

    on the Floor.

    Ever since we had the Supreme Court

    ruling, we have never had our peace in

    this House. There would be some

    underlying factors that would bring all

    these issues. This House would need a

    Committee of the Whole, so that we can

    discuss whatever we think would work

    Mr Speaker, without doubt, if a baby

    cries every day, it means that baby needs

    attention and if there is an issue and we

    do not address it, the problem would still

    continue. So I would urge you to suspend

    the House so that we could have a

    Committee of the Whole to address this

    issue and then we would come back and

    continue.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker.

    An Hon Member - rose -
    Mr Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Hon Member, if you
    would like to speak, be on your feet. You
    have to be recognised.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the
    Hon Second Deputy Minority Whip, Mrs
    Ghansah, who is in Leadership, and for
    the time being, the available Hon Leader
    has made an application. It is a case that
    there are matters of blessed assurance that
    would require deliberations at the
    Committee of the Whole, and I agree. She
    thinks that these matters would be best
    resolved when we meet as a Committee
    of the Whole. She is a woman with a lot
    of experience in this House and this
    wisdom in her submission cannot be
    taken for granted. I therefore, feel
    inclined to go by that and I believe the
    necessary arrangements would be made
    so that the application made by her would
    be so considered.
    GoG-KfW Loan Agreement

    Mr Speaker, meanwhile, we may

    proceed with item numbered 23 on page

    15, unless my respected Hon Colleague is

    of the view that we need to suspend

    Sitting to pursue the matter she has raised

    and I agree with her. So, if you would be

    pleased, may you suspend Sitting for 30

    minutes to enable us have a Committee of

    the Whole to discuss the matters -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    A
    Committee of the Whole or a Committee
    of Leaders, which is the proposal?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    Leadership would confer and
    communicate to Hon Members. We could
    suspend Sitting for 30 minutes.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Very well.
    That is the proposal which has been
    communicated.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:44 p.m.
    Exactly so, Mr
    Speaker.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Very well,
    I would defer to what the Hon Leaders
    have suggested but Hon Member for
    Akatsi South, your chance to speak - no, could you resume your seat? You
    suggested that you were on your feet and
    I did not recognise you or? You know,
    one of the things I learnt much earlier
    sitting at where you were sitting or behind
    you was that it is not every time that you
    are on your feet that Mr Speaker would
    recognise you. You do not always catch
    the Speaker's eye but that does not mean that your right has been - Standing Order 86 (1) says:
    “A Member desiring to speak shall rise in his place, and address
    the Chair only after catching Mr.
    Speaker's eye”.
    So, yes, sometimes, you may be on
    your feet but you may not catch Mr
    Speaker's eye; just accept that it is not always that you would catch Mr
    Speaker's eye.
    Mr Ahiafor 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    recognised that particular aspect of the
    rule but I maintained and the cameras can
    bear me out that I caught your eye and
    you made signs - [Laughter] -Instead of inviting me to speak, you were seated
    making hand gestures and sign language.
    So, to say that it is not always that one
    would catch the eye of Mr Speaker, then
    the correct position is that in this case, the
    Speaker has seen me but has decided not
    to invite me. As for that one, I would
    agree but to say that you have not seen me
    on my feet, I would not agree on it today
    or tomorrow because that cannot be the
    factual situation.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    That is
    exactly what it means. It is not always
    GoG-KfW Loan Agreement

    when Mr Speaker sees you that he would

    give you the opportunity for you to speak.

    Hon Members, I would defer to the

    Leadership and suspend Sitting. Let the

    Leadership confer and invite us in.

    12.50 p.m. — Sitting suspended.

    1:40 p.m. — Sitting resumed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, the House is called back to
    order.
    Yes, Leadership of the House, I await
    your guidance. Yes, Hon available
    Leader?
    Dr Cassiel A. B. Forson 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    in line with the decisions that we took at
    the conclave meeting, the agreement was
    that we could go ahead with the Business
    of the day upon the information that we
    had from the Clerk-at-the-Table that we
    had up to more than half of Hon Members
    of Parliament representing 138. We have
    no problem if, indeed, that is the case and
    the evidence was shown to us. So, we can
    go ahead and do Business -
    Mr Speaker, however, on a serious
    note, I think it is a lesson to all of us as
    Hon Members of Parliament to take
    attendance seriously. We would like to
    reiterate that at any point in time that we
    feel that this House does not constitute a
    quorum to take a decision, we would raise
    a concern. We would want to encourage
    Members to be serious with the Business
    of the day to ensure that, at least we have
    to be present and to take Government
    Business seriously.
    Mr Speaker, we can guarantee that
    Hon Members of Parliament from our
    Side would be coming to work at any
    point in time. So, we urge the
    Government Side to also ensure that they
    appear before us anytime we are called
    upon to do Government Business so that
    together, we can prosecute Government
    agenda.
    Mr Alexander Afenyo-Markin 12:44 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, as rightly expressed by my
    respected Colleague, we have no doubt
    on our mind that the count done by the
    Table Office is correct and we will
    proceed on that premise. Also, to
    encourage ourselves to be punctual in the
    Chamber to do Government Business and
    Private Business - that is why we are here. I am happy that we have been able
    to jaw-jaw. I mean that is why we are here
    as Parliament to resolve matters that
    nearly led to some unnecessary tension.
    So I would like to thank my Hon
    Colleagues for their cooperation, be assured that we will continue in this spirit of engagement.
    Mr Speaker, we also thank you for
    indulging us and for your wisdom in
    GoG-KfW Loan Agreement

    guiding us in reaching certain agreement on how to proceed on today's work. Having said this, I would want to thank you once again.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Very well.
    Mr Afenyo- Markin 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we
    therefore pray you to proceed with item
    numbered 23 on page 15 of the Order
    Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, what page?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    Motion numbered 23 on page 15 of the
    Order Paper.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 12:44 p.m.
    Very well.
    Item numbered 23 - Motion, by the Hon Chairman of the Committee.
    MOTIONS 12:44 p.m.

    Nana Ayew Afriye) 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg
    to move, that this honourable House
    adopts the Report of the Committee on
    Health on the Engineering, Procurement
    and Construction Agreement between the
    Government of the Republic of Ghana
    (represented by the Ministry of Health)
    and Golden Mainland Ghana Limited for
    an amount of thirty-eight million euros
    (€38,000,000.00) for the construction and equipping of 40-Bed District Hospitals at
    Ayensuano, Effiduase and Offinso, and
    the completion and equipping of the Old
    Tafo Maternity and the Kumasi South
    Maternity Blocks.
    Mr Speaker, in so doing, I beg to
    present your Committee's Report.
    1. Introduction
    In accordance with Article 181 of the
    1992 Constitution, the request for the
    approval of the Engineering,
    Procurement and Construction
    Commercial Contract between the
    Government of the Republic of Ghana
    (represented by the Ministry of Health)
    and Golden Mainland Ghana Limited for
    an amount of thirty-eight million Euros
    (€38,000,000.00) for the Construction
    and Equipping of 40-Bed District
    Hospitals at Ayensuano, Effiduase and
    Offinso and the Completion and
    Equipping of the Old Tafo Maternity and
    Kumasi South Maternity Blocks was
    presented to the House on Monday, 20th

    December, 2021, by the Hon. Minister

    for Health, Mr. Kwaku Agyeman-Manu.

    The Commercial Agreement was

    subsequently referred to the Committee

    on Health for consideration and report in

    accordance with Article 103(3) of the

    Constitution and Order 178 of the

    Standing Orders of the House.

    2.0 Deliberation

    The Hon. Deputy Minister for Health,

    Alhaji Mahama A. Seini and other

    Officials of the Ministry of Health

    participated in the deliberations. The

    Committee appreciates their assistance.

    3.0 Reference Documents

    In addition to the referred document,

    the Committee was guided by the

    following documents during its

    deliberations:

    i. The 1992 Constitution of Ghana;

    ii. The Standing Orders of

    Parliament;

    iii. Public Financial Management Act, 2016

    (Act 921)

    iv. Engineering,

    Procurement and

    Construction Agreement

    between the Government

    of the Republic of Ghana

    (represented by the

    Ministry of Health) and

    the MZ Liberec, a.s. of

    the Czech Republic for an

    amount of Thirty-Eight

    Million Euros

    (€38,000,000.00) for the Construction and

    Equipping of 40-Bed

    District Hospitals at

    Ayensuano, Effiduase

    and Offinso and the

    Completion and

    Equipping of Old Tafo

    Maternity and Kumasi

    South Maternity Blocks.

    4.0 Background

    The Government is desirous of

    embarking on sustainable and integrated

    infrastructural development programme

    in the Health Sector as part of its

    commitment towards enhancing the

    quality of health service delivery and

    also promoting universal access to

    healthcare.

    There is a continuous increase in Out

    Patient visits to the various hospitals in

    all the regions but the development of

    health infrastructure has not kept pace

    with it. Presently, there are two hundred

    GoG/Golden Mainland Ghanan Limited Engineering, Procurement and Contruction Agrmt.

    and fifty-six (256) administrative

    districts, of which only one hundred and

    nine (109) have district hospitals and the

    limited capacity has led to congestion

    and pressure on the utilisation of most of

    the health facilities in Ghana, as they

    operate above their established

    thresholds. This situation affects patients

    satisfaction, as there is a long waiting

    that time at OPD and also poses a

    challenge in providing quality health

    care services by over stressed health

    workers.

    Managerial strategies for improving

    quality assurance should be matched

    with corresponding expansion and

    improvement in health infrastructure and

    it is for this and other reasons that the

    Ministries of Health and Finance had

    discussions with Czech Export Bank to

    structure a credit facility for Ghana.

    In July 2021, MZ Liberec gave an

    indication to discontinue the project. The

    local partner Golden Mainland Ghana

    Limited expressed interest to continue as

    the main turnkey provider. Golden

    Mainland has submitted the project

    documents to meet the financing

    arrangement from Deutsche Bank (the

    Arranger and the Original Lender).

    This project covers the construction

    and equipping of 40-Bed District

    Hospitals at Ayensuano, Effiduase and

    Offinso and the completion and

    equipping of the Old Tafo Maternity

    and the Kumasi South Maternity

    Blocks. The project is expected to

    improve healthcare infrastructure in

    selected health facilities in Ghana

    through the execution of construction,

    upgrade/rehabilitation (civil works) and

    retooling (Medical and Non-Medical

    Equipment Supply and Installation) of

    selected beneficiary facilities. The

    purpose of the retooling, revamping and

    supply of equipment to selected existing

    hospitals is to address the shortfall in the

    provision of infrastructural facilities

    and biomedical equipment. This is part

    of the efforts by government to enhance

    the quality of health care delivery and

    also bring equity in the distribution of

    health care infrastructure in the country.

    5.0 Objective of the Contract

    The objective of the contract is to

    have a healthy and productive population

    that reproduces itself safely to achieve

    the following objectives:

    i. Bridge the equity gaps in

    geographical access to health

    services;

    ii. Ensure sustainable financing for health care delivery and

    financial protection for

    the poor.

    iii. Improve efficiency in

    GoG/Golden Mainland Ghanan Limited Engineering, Procurement and Contruction Agrmt.

    governance and management

    of the health system.

    iv. Improve quality of health service delivery including

    mental health services

    v. Enhance national capacity for the attainment of the

    health related MDGs and

    sustain the gains; and

    vi. Intensify prevention and control of non-

    communicable and other

    communicable

    diseases.

    6.0 Implementation Plan

    The project which comprises the

    construction, equipment supply and

    installation will be completed within 36

    months upon approval of the

    Memorandum, detailed design and

    equipment schedules. The projects will

    be executed by Messrs Golden Mainland

    Ghana Limited.

    The project is made up of two key

    components. These are:

    i. Expansion works and equipment supply for the

    Hospitals which will

    comprise the following

    activities:

    j. Construction mobilisation: 2 months from the

    approval of the detailed

    design

    k. Procurement and installation of medical

    equipment and accessories

    l. Commissioning: 1 month after practical completion

    and handing over

    ii. Revamping, retooling and equipment supply for the

    selected Hospitals.

    a. Renovation and revamping of existing

    structures;

    b. Procurement and installation of medical

    equipment and other

    accessories.

    7 .0 Scope of Works

    The Committee observed that the

    detailed scope of works of the 40 bed

    capacity hospitals include:

    i. Design, Construction and Equipping of lno. fully

    functional 45-bed District level

    facility of approximately

    3,900sqmme with all

    GoG/Golden Mainland Ghanan Limited Engineering, Procurement and Contruction Agrmt.

    departments as defined in the

    Ministry's space program for

    Ayensuano, Effiduase and

    Offinso South.

    ii. Completion and equipping of existing 1 no 40-bed Maternity

    block at Kumasi south Hospital

    with floor area of 2200sqms.

    iii. Completion and furnishing of existing associated residential

    accommodation at Abrepo

    with floor area of 1300sqm.

    iv. Completion and equipping of existing 1 no 40-bed Maternity

    block at Tafo Hospital with a

    floor area of 3000sqms.

    v. Supply and installation of all associated electromechanical

    systems for the hospitals.

    vi. Installation of ICT Equipment, CCTV and the relevant software

    for a paperless operation of the

    hospital.

    vii. Supply and installation of all

    medical equipment as detailed out in the equipment list and specifications.

    viii. Supply and installation of all Fixed Furniture and Equipment (FFE) including medical and non-medical furniture in every facility or space provided to

    make it fully functional.

    ix. External Works to include roads, pavements, covered walkways, canopies, covered drains, parking and landscaping Works all within the site boundaries.

    x. Provision of external lighting for

    illuminating the area (car parks, courtyards, streets, walkways and other partially covered or uncovered areas- all within the Site boundaries)

    xi. Post Construction Maintenance & Training.

    8.0 Observations and Recommendations

    8.1 Change of Contractor

    The Committee observed that the facility agreement and commercial contract was previously laid in the 7th Parliament and had to be withdrawn due to some changes in the financial and technical arrangements.

    The Committee was informed that

    MZ Liberec a.s. in partnership with Golden Mainland Ghana were mandated to execute the project under an EPC turnkey contract but realized that Golden Mainland Ghana Limited is now the main turnkey provider.

    Unfortunately, MZ Liberec withdrew

    from the contract because they were not prepared to finance any preliminary cost

    GoG/Golden Mainland Ghanan Limited Engineering, Procurement and Contruction Agrmt.

    regarding the site surveys, ESIA, Geotechnical investigation, value for money fees until advance payment is affected by the Ministry of Health. Messrs, Golden Mainland Ghana Limited, the local partners expressed interest and has demonstrated a lot of commitment and capacity to deliver on the project. They have proceeded to finance and completed all preparatory works, carrying out all the studies and surveys, ESIA and all documentations required for value for money assessment.

    Also, these challenges had been

    addressed without government suffering any financial costs in the contract. The Committee was informed that barring any hitches in the approval process, the project would take off by May 2022.

    8.2 Expansion of Bed Capacity

    The Committee also noted that the project was a laudable one and would improve the health infrastructure in the communities. However, considering the population of the beneficiary communities such as Effiduase, it was the considered view of the committee that the 40-bed capacity was too small to facilitate effective health service delivery in the area. It was explained that as a result of changes in the design, the 40-bed capacity district hospital has been expanded to 45 at no additional cost to the contract sum.

    The Committee noted that this was still not enough for the size of the population in the communities involved, but the Committee was informed that the

    project was expandable and that more beds could be added to meet the growing needs of the population. The Ministry further added that other factors such as existing nearby hospital facilities were taken into account in determining the size of the hospitals.

    The Committee wish to recommend to the Ministry of Health to consider expanding the hospital bed capacity to meet the growing needs of the population.

    8.3 Value for Money Audit

    The Committee requested for the Value for Money audit (VFM) as it noted that the commercial agreement was an old one and as such, a VFM audit was supposed to have been conducted. The Ministry informed the Committee that due to the change of the financiers and contractors of the previous contract, the VFM was done and is currently before the Ministry of Finance and therefore assured the Committee that it would ensure that a copy is made available to the Committee as soon as it is completed.

    8.4 Staff Training for the

    Maintenance of Medical Equipment

    The Committee having regard to the

    poor maintenance culture of such

    facilities called for the training of staff

    who will operate the medical equipment

    to build their capacity and also ensure

    that they are in a better position to

    GoG/Golden Mainland Ghanan Limited Engineering, Procurement and Contruction Agrmt.

    undertake the maintenance of the

    equipment after the project has been

    handed over to the authorities.

    The Committee therefore

    recommended that the Ministry should

    ensure that the training of such staff

    would be effectively done to achieve

    the intended purpose so that there

    would be no need to sign and approve

    any service agreement with the

    contractor/supplier for that matter.

    9.0 Conclusion

    The Committee after careful

    deliberation and taking cognisance of the

    benefits to be derived from the project

    recommends to the House to adopt its

    report and approve by resolution, the

    Engineering, Procurement and Construction

    Commercial Contract between the Government

    of the Republic of Ghana (represented by the

    Ministry of Health) and Golden Mainland

    Ghana Limited for an amount of thirty-eight

    million euros (€38,000,000.00) for the Construction and Equipping of 40-Bed District

    Hospitals at Ayensuano, Effiduase and Offinso

    and the Completion and Equipping of Old Tafo

    Maternity and Kumasi South Maternity

    Blocks.

    Respectfully submitted.
    Mr Mohammed Adamu Ramadan 12:44 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion.
    Mr Speaker, this facility agreement
    was previously laid in the Seventh
    Parliament; however, it had to be
    withdrawn due to some changes in the
    financial and technical agreements.
    Mr Speaker, in the initial agreement,
    MZ Liberec, a.s. in partnership with
    Golden Mainland Ghana Limited were
    mandated to execute the project under an
    EPC Turnkey contract.
    Mr Speaker, however, MZ Liberec
    withdrew from the contract and in the
    Report on page 5, it says that MZ Liberec
    was not prepared to finance any
    preliminary cost regarding the site
    service, environmental and social impact
    assessment, geotechnical investigation,
    value-for-money fees until advance
    payment is effected to the Ministry of
    Health.
    As part of the contract, they were
    supposed to have undertaken these items
    before they would receive any advance
    payment. It is important to note that
    presently, out of the 256 administrative
    districts we have, only 109 have district
    hospitals. Therefore it is important to
    support any project that would help get
    more district hospitals to improve on
    quality health care.
    Mr Speaker, the scope of work would
    not be affected negatively with the
    GoG/Golden Mainland Ghanan Limited Engineering, Procurement and Contruction Agrmt.

    change of MZ Liberec because Golden

    Mainland Ghana Limited has committed

    to do exactly everything and the scope of

    work as captured in page 4 of the Report

    among others, has to do with the design,

    construction and equipping of one fully

    functional 45 district level space.

    Currently, we have a 40-bed capacity;

    however, Golden Mainland Ghana

    Limited has agreed to alter it to 45-bed

    capacity, so it does not affect the scope of

    work. This project is expected to take off

    in May 2022 barring any hitches for it to

    be completed within 36 months of

    commencement.

    Mr Speaker, in conclusion, I urge this

    House to adopt the Report and approve by

    Resolution, the EPC Contract between

    GoG (represented by the Ministry of

    Health) and Golden Mainland Ghana

    Limited for the construction and

    equipping of the 40-bed district hospital

    at Ayensuano, Effiduase and Offinso and

    the completion of the maternity blocks in

    Kumasi.

    Mr Speaker, I am most grateful for this

    opportunity to second the Motion.

    Question proposed.
    Mr Teddy Safori Addi (NDC - Ayensuano) 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very
    much.
    First and foremost, I would like to
    thank the House for even considering this
    very Motion. Over the weekend I was in
    my constituency and the chiefs and
    people of Ayensuano pleaded with me
    that I should do whatever I can to get this
    hospital for the constituency. I humbly
    want to plead with this House that we
    need it in my constituency because it
    would aid and help the people of
    Ayensuano Constituency. Mr Speaker,
    with this few words I thank you for the
    opportunity.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Member for Offinso North?
    Mr Collins Augustine Ntim (NPP - Offinso North) 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you
    for the opportunity.
    First of all, I would like to thank the
    Hon Minister, the entire Ministry of
    Health and indeed, the Hon Chairman of
    the Health Committee for considering
    Offinso North as part of the
    Government's agenda for providing health care services to the entire region.
    Indeed, the decision to provide health
    facility to Offinso is germane because
    when you look at the whole trans-
    international highway from Kumasi right
    down to Techiman, Offinso, Kintampo
    GoG/Golden Mainland Ghanan Limited Engineering, Procurement and Contruction Agrmt.

    and up to the north, there is no

    Government hospital to take care of the

    volumes of cases of road accidents that

    have been coming to this old health rural

    centre which was provided in 1969 by the

    then Busia Administration.

    Mr Speaker, this facility has been

    helping us to address the critical

    challenges of the issues of accidents and

    so on. So it came as a great relief when

    the Ministry of Health considered it as

    part of the Ministry's plans to provide access to hospitals by considering

    Offinso North. I am so happy, because it

    is going to address most of the critical

    challenges pertaining to health service

    delivery.

    Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Hon

    Minister and the Hon Chairman for

    considering my constituency.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Member from Ajumako-Enyan-Essiam
    Dr Cassiel Ato Baah Forson (NDC -
    Ajumako-Enyan-Essiam): Mr Speaker,
    I would need some clarity from the Hon
    Chairman of the Committee or maybe the
    Hon Minister responsible for Health. Mr
    Speaker, I recalled this agreement pretty
    well. Sometime in November 2020, we
    were called upon to first approve a loan
    agreement of €36 million and its corresponding commercial agreement. I
    recalled that the Finance Committee at
    the time recommended to the plenary to
    approve it, which we obviously did as a
    House. Mr Speaker, for some reason, the
    loan that was supposed to come from the
    Czech Republic fell through and for some
    other reason, the Government has decided
    to go back to Deutsche Bank for a new
    agreement and the loan agreement that
    was supposed to be €36 million has been increased to €38.9million.
    Mr Speaker, that is why the Finance
    Committee decided to recommend to the
    House to rescind the earlier Resolution.
    What I am not too sure about is whether
    the Ministry of Health has indeed
    approved and signed the initial
    commercial agreement? If they have, then
    if Parliament approves the official
    agreement it would then mean that we
    would have to rescind our decision before
    we are called upon to approve this loan.
    That is very imperative and it is important
    that the Hon Minister and the Hon
    Chairman gives us that information
    because I do not believe that it should be
    sorted out after we have approved this. If
    Parliament approves by consensus or for
    whatever reason if Parliament has a
    Resolution for the approval of the original
    commercial agreement, I do not believe
    that we should go ahead and approve of
    this until we have rescinded our decision
    on the earlier one.
    GoG/Golden Mainland Ghanan Limited Engineering, Procurement and Contruction Agrmt.

    So the Hon Chairman should kindly

    give us some information on that before

    we proceed.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    I thought
    the Hon Minister would respond to that.
    Minister for Health (Mr Kwaku
    Agyeman-Manu): Mr Speaker, I thank
    my Hon Colleague for using “if”. For instance, he said that ‘if this has happened then this would happen'. We have not signed the commercial agreement yet and
    that is why we brought it to Parliament
    and when we finish with it here, I do not
    think there would be any rescission. Yes,
    we got the approval but we have not
    signed the commercial agreement. That is
    why the finance aspect came in.
    Dr Forson 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, Parliament
    has a Resolution for a contract by another
    contractor for a lower amount. Today, we
    are being called upon to approve another
    commercial agreement with another
    company, for the same contract which is
    a higher amount. Mr Speaker, before we
    can approve this, let us rescind our
    decision on the earlier one before we can
    go ahead in approving another
    commercial agreement. If not, we would
    have two commercial agreements with
    different amounts and in that case which
    one are we going to execute?
    Mr Speaker, we cannot rely on the Hon
    Minister for Health to take that decision
    on behalf of the State. Mr Speaker, this is
    the work of Parliament and that is why
    before we called on you to put the
    Question, the Finance Committee asked
    that we rescind the earlier decision before
    the adoption of the Committees Report
    and the Motion. I think it is only right that
    we do what is right.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 1:50 p.m.
    I have just
    been advised that we have already
    rescinded that decision by a Motion
    moved by the Hon Member for Ejisu.
    Hon Member for Obuasi West?
    Mr Kwaku Agyeman Kwarteng 1:50 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, there is no need for a rescission
    of the commercial agreement because the
    commercial agreement that this House
    approved has not changed. It is the
    financing for that project that did not
    materialise. Therefore, this House was
    called upon to approve a new facility and
    we recommended to this House that we
    do not want to give approval for two
    different facilities for the same project so
    this House should rescind its decision on
    the approval of the commercial facility so
    that we can approve the new one; both of
    which we did under your guidance and so
    there is no need for the approval of any
    commercial facility as far as I am
    concerned.
    Dr Forson 1:50 p.m.
    I am only guiding you so
    that we can collectively do what is right.
    GoG/Golden Mainland Ghanan Limited Engineering, Procurement and Contruction Agrmt.

    Mr Speaker let no one create the

    impression that I am against the

    agreement before us. Parliament

    rescinded the decision on the loan

    agreement and not the commercial

    agreement. So we did not rescind the

    commercial agreement decision.

    Mr Speaker, the amount has changed

    from €36 million to €38 million so if the commercial agreement is not being

    affected, why the change in values? Why

    is it being increased by €2 million? In fact if nothing has happened, why is it that

    they are calling on us to approve a new

    commercial agreement? Something may

    have happened. There is certainly a

    change and that is why they are calling on

    us to approve something new. So I am

    only asking him to do what is right which

    is to rescind the earlier decision and then

    we would approve the new one. Mr

    Speaker, this is not rocket science, it is

    logical.
    Mr Annoh-Dompreh 1:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    with respect, the Leadership would confer on this. I think my Hon Colleague has a point so the necessary consultation would be done immediately.
    But before then, if we can take -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Then to that extent, we would defer further consideration of this Motion so that we can reconcile whether they are the same.
    So, consideration of item numbered 23 is deferred.
    Mr Annoh-Dompreh 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, shall we vary order of business and take item numbered 5, Questions?
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Very well.
    Hon Members, we would now return
    to private business, item numbered 5,
    Questions. There is only one Question
    outstanding to be answered by the
    Minister of State at the Office of the
    President.
    The Question is to be asked by the Hon
    Member for North Tongu, Mr Samuel
    Okudzeto Ablakwa.
    It will be asked on his behalf by the
    Hon Member for -
    Mr Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor 2 p.m.
    Mr Speaker I have the permission of the
    Hon Member to seek your leave to ask the
    Question on his behalf.
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, having regard to the state of the
    Business of the House, I direct that the
    House Sits outside the regular Sitting
    hours.
    The Second Deputy Speaker to take
    the chair.
    You may now ask your Question.
    GoG/Golden Mainland Ghanan Limited Engineering, Procurement and Contruction Agrmt.
    ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 2 p.m.

    OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 2 p.m.

    Mr First Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Yes Hon
    Minister?
    2.08 p.m. - [MR SECOND DEPUTY

    Minister of State at the Office of the

    President (Ms Freda Akosua

    Prempeh): To ask the Minister of

    State at the Office of the President

    what is Government's policy on the

    status of (NABCO) Trainees after the

    expiration of their threeyear

    engagement which lapsed at the end of

    October 2021, and plans for more

    sustainable job creation.

    Introduction:

    Mr Speaker, The Nation Builder's Corps (NAB CO) is a flagship project initiative by the NPP government led by His Excellency, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the President of the Republic of Ghana.

    The NABCO Scheme started

    with a direct recruitment of

    100,000 tertiary graduates, some

    of whom had been unemployed

    for nearly a decade following the

    completion of their academic

    studies.

    The objectives of the NAB CO

    programme are as follows:

    • Provide temporary employment to

    unemployed graduates.

    • Improve skills and employability for

    transition from

    programme to

    permanent

    employment.

    • Improve public service delivery.

    • Improve on government revenue mobilisation.

    Structure

    In terms of its structure,

    the 36-month programme

    has 3 key phases: 6-

    month probation, 24-

    month work placement

    and 6 months exit

    preparation.

    All enrolled trainees

    applied via the 7-module

    vehicle of the scheme.

    The scheme currently

    operates through seven

    modules:

    Educate Ghana, Heal

    Ghana, Feed Ghana,

    Revenue Ghana, Digitize

    Ghana, Civic Ghana and

    Enterprise Ghana.

    Enrolment by trainees

    was based on self-

    selection on the basis of

    applicable qualifications

    for each of the modules.

    In general, however, the

    programme is voluntary,

    and trainees are free to

    leave to pursue their

    careers whenever the

    opportunity comes up, by

    giving a month's notice.

    Mr Speaker, the first batch of NABCO Trainees' three-year engagement lapsed at the end of October 2021. NABCO as a well- structured voluntary programme has provided Work and Learning experiences for those who voluntarily signed onto the scheme in 2018. The work option is meant for trainees to put their foundational education background to use, build and acquire additional skills within the work environment.

    The scheme therefore expects

    trainees to consider different

    pathways during their stay on the

    scheme leading to their exit. NABCO

    trainees are broadly expected to

    pursue distinct career pathways as

    follows:

    i. Gain retention in current role or employment elsewhere;

    ii. Self-employment and

    entrepreneurship or;

    iii. Career-focused further

    learning including vocational training.

    Oral Answers to Questions

    On the current roll of the NABCO

    Scheme are 67,657 trainees from the

    initial 100,000 enrolled tertiary

    graduates.

    In line with the pathways set above,

    as an exit arrangement, some of the

    trainees were offered permanent

    employment by the lead agencies

    before the expiration of their three

    year tenure. Therefore, as part of the

    exit plan, management of NAB CO

    has continued its engagement with the

    lead Module Implementation Partners

    (MIPs) to complete their talent needs

    assessments and offer available

    vacancies to qualified and deserving

    trainees. These should lead to further

    employment into some of the

    institutions with the trainees namely;

    the Ghana Revenue Authority, Ghana

    Education Service, Ministry of Health

    and the Ghana Health Service,

    Ministry of communications, and the

    Ministry of Food and Agriculture

    among others.

    NABCO would continue to

    collaborate with other agencies and

    programmes to provide

    entrepreneurship support to those

    trainees, among the 67,657 with viable

    and innovative business ideas to

    become entrepreneurs. Collaboration

    is currently ongoing with the National

    Entrepreneurship and Innovation

    Programme (NEIP) and the Ghana

    Enterprise Agency (GEA) under the

    YouStart.

    All other trainees are being

    prepared through the transition into

    sustainable employment opportunities

    or their chosen career pathways as

    outlined earlier.

    Mr Speaker, Within the 2022 Budget, Government has consolidated its approach to employment hinged to entrepreneurship under the YouStart Programme. The YouStart will enable young people to seek and be supported both technically and financially, to start and set up their enterprises.

    This consolidated approach, and

    the major drive towards

    Oral Answers to Questions

    entrepreneurship under the YouStart,

    will affect the business-minded ones

    among the 67, 657 trainees currently

    at the exit phase of the NABCO

    Scheme.

    Clearly, the status of the remaining

    trainees on the NABCO scheme are

    tied to their elected career pathways;

    Permanent employment,

    Entrepreneurship and further learning.

    Mr Speaker, Government's current

    policy direction on mass entrepreneurship under the YouStart will lead to more sustainable jobs, and hence offer a solution to the unemployment problem among the youth.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2 p.m.
    Yes,
    Hon Member, any supplementary
    questions?
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2 p.m.
    I thank you for the
    opportunity.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister in her
    Answer to the House indicated that out of
    the initial 100,000 enrolled, we have
    about 67,657 trainees currently subsisting
    on the scheme.
    Mr Speaker, out of the number that
    have exited, is she able to tell the House
    where they have been assigned to?
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you
    very much.
    Mr Speaker, this is a voluntary programme and as I stated earlier in my submission, the trainees are at liberty to leave as and when they desired. So most of them left without properly informing the NABCO Project Officer. Some have also secured jobs in the public sector, some in the security services and some have set up their own businesses.
    The Question was specific on transition so if the Hon Member wants us to give figures allocated to exactly where the NABCO trainees are, if he files a Question, I would oblige to that. But as it is, it is a voluntary programme and they can decide to leave as and when they desire.

    So most of them left without informing the project officer or going back to the portal to delete their names from the list, but the 33,000 have exited and some have secured jobs elsewhere.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Yes, Hon Member?
    Mr Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in paragraph 6 of the Hon Minister's Answer, she indicated that the first batch exited in October 2021. How many NABCO officers did they recruit this year?
    Oral Answers to Questions
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, there has not been any recruitment this year. We recruited in 2018 and their three-year term elapsed in October 2021. But per the kind vision and directive of the President, they are still at post at their various agencies, so we have not recruited anymore.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    Yes, Hon Member, you can ask your
    final supplementary question.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, is the
    Hon Deputy Minister suggesting that
    NABCO was a one-off engagement
    programme or it is a programme that is
    continuing in terms of recruiting young
    graduates? So, if they recruited about
    100,000 in 2018, how many did they
    recruit in 2019 and 2020?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Minister, repeat your answer to him.
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon
    Member knows that what he is asking is
    not part of the question that was filed by
    my Hon Colleague, Mr Okudzeto
    Ablakwa.
    The question was specific on the
    transition process.
    Mr Speaker, I have already said that
    the first batch was recruited in 2018; their
    term of office elapsed in October 2021,
    and we have since that time not recruited
    more because this is a pilot programme.
    We need to put structures in place to
    ensure that as we progress, we make
    available other resources to cater for the
    new batch.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Why
    are so many people on their feet? Hon
    Dafeamekpor, you have finished with
    your questions. You have exhausted your
    time.
    Yes, Hon Acheampong?
    Mr Richard Acheampong (NDC - Bia East) 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before I ask my
    question, the Hon Minister said that they
    recruited 100,000 NABCO officers, but
    in the 2021 Budget Statement, the
    numbers were not up to 100,000 and that
    one must be established. I thank God the
    Hon Minister for Employment and
    Labour Relations is here. It was not up to
    100,000; and that is public record. But I
    would want to find out since the Hon
    Minister said that they cannot account for
    those people that have exited— meanwhile, we pay them their allowances
    every month. So if the Hon Minister does
    not know how many of them have exited,
    how would one be in the position to know
    the amount of money the Government is
    spending on the remaining officers?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    Yes, Hon Minister?
    Oral Answers to Questions
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon
    Colleague is asking a different question. I
    say so because, if I can remember, my
    Hon Colleague asked where the 32,000
    trainees who have exited are. He did not
    ask me of the numbers. So, if the Hon
    Member wants to file another question for
    further information, he can do so.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    Hon Members, let us be fair to the Hon
    Minister. We cannot bring the Hon
    Minister here to answer specific
    questions, and then we divert from the
    main question and ask something else.
    She will give us an information which
    may not turn out to be the right one, so let
    us appreciate where the Hon Minister is
    coming from.
    Yes, Hon Member for Ningo-
    Prampram?
    Mr Samuel Nartey George (NDC-
    Ningo-Prampram): Mr Speaker, thank
    you very much.
    Mr Speaker, I take a cue from your
    recent comment and I will stick to the
    answer provided by the Hon Minister. Mr
    Speaker, with your permission, I read:
    “Mr Speaker, within the 2022 Budget, Government has
    consolidated its approach to
    employment hinged to
    entrepreneurship under the
    YouStart Programme.”
    Mr Speaker, this means that
    Government is seeking to pivot from
    NABCO to YouStart Programme.
    However, the NABCO beneficiaries are
    owed four months in arrears. Before they
    start the YouStart Programmes, does she
    have any plans and when to settle the
    outstanding salaries or wages and
    stipends owed the beneficiaries of
    NABCO, and the Hon Deputy Majority
    Leader can continue his coaching?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very
    well. Hon Minister?
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as I
    indicated earlier, the NABCO
    programme is a voluntary programme, so
    I believe some survey were done
    throughout the programme. Some of the
    trainees opted to go into
    entrepreneurship, others, to further their
    education, and some of them decided to
    stay on their own and even travel outside
    the country. So, we are not necessarily
    transferring all the 67,000 to the YouStart
    programme, which would be run by them
    and the Ghana Enterprises Agency. It
    depends on who wants to be where. If you
    identify with the entrepreneurship project
    then we would transfer you unto that
    programme and support you with that
    programme.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Oral Answers to Questions
    Mr George 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, those who
    have outstanding - the NABCO staff, some have four months outstanding
    salaries. When would they be paid?
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this
    question was specific on transition
    process. It was not - he did not ask me a question on payment. In any case, all the
    NABCO trainees who subscribed to the
    NABCO programmes for the past three
    years up to their expiry date in October
    2021 have been paid - [Uproar!] - Just that the President directed that from
    October till now, they have to stay on
    while we prepared them for onward
    transmission to wherever they want to go.
    So that is outstanding and Government is
    making all frantic efforts to support that
    payment.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, let us listen to the answers. She
    said up to October, so we should not rush.
    Yes, Hon Member for Bongo?
    Mr Edward Bawa (NDC - Bongo) 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
    I heard the Hon Minister in one of her
    responses that the programme was a pilot,
    and that it was terminated in 2021. My
    question is that would they recruit a new
    batch or after the pilot they would be
    doing an assessment and nothing would
    be happening again? - [Interruption] - No, it is based on --
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is a
    policy direction so I cannot stand here
    and answer the question. When the time
    comes, we would let them know exactly
    what is happening - [Mr Bawa: She is a Minister; she speaks to policy issues] -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Yes,
    Hon Adams Sulemana?
    Mr Adams Sulemana 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    per the answers that the Hon Minister has
    given, I would want to find out from her
    whether NABCO was another layer of
    training or it was a recruitment agency?
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I indicated
    earlier that 100,000 trainees signed on.
    More than 140,000 people applied, but
    10000 trainees were signed on. So, I
    cannot stand here and decide for Mr A or
    Mr B whether to take up entrepreneurship
    or public sector employment. It depends
    on the voluntary application by the
    applicant trainee, and that is where we are
    now.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Yes,
    Hon Member for Buem?
    Mr Kofi Iddie Adams 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    the Minister said in her Answer that,
    “This consolidated approach and the major drive towards entrepreneurship
    under the YouStart will affect the
    business-minded ones among the 67,657
    trainees currently at the exit phase of the
    NABCO Scheme”.
    Oral Answers to Questions

    Mr Speaker, we know the YouStart

    Programme has been captured and it is

    supposed to be implemented. May I know

    whether the Minister has the record of the

    business-minded ones among the 67,657

    trainees that she stated in her answer?
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the
    trainees would have to apply, so that we
    know their numbers. As I said earlier, we
    have three exit pathways: Either by
    entrepreneurship, going back to school,
    or by seeking employment in the public
    sector.
    2. 20 p.m.
    So wherever the person wants to go, if
    he or she applies to the entrepreneurship
    programme, which is going to be run
    anyway by National Entrepreneurship
    and Innovation Programme (NEIP) and
    the Ghana Enterprises Agency, we would
    take care of them. However, the 67, 695
    trainees are currently at post.
    Mr Suhuyini Sayibu Alhassan 2:10 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, the Hon Minister said that the
    NABCO Programme has been a pilot
    Programme since the year 2018, and she
    admits that over 140,000 people applied.
    She again says that there has not been any
    recruitment of unemployed graduates
    since the 2018 recruitment, meaning there
    were no recruitments in the years 2019,
    2020, and 2021. The Hon Minister also
    said that since it is a policy decision, she
    does not know whether there would be
    recruitment in 2022. I would want to
    know from the Hon Minister if that is the
    case?
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I have
    indicated early on that it is a policy
    decision, so as and when the President
    decides to recruit more we would do so.
    But some have left and as we get more
    vacancies, we fill in but we have not
    substantially recruited 100,000 as we
    started with.
    Dr Augustine Tawiah 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    in the sixth paragraph, the Hon Minister
    indicates that NABCO as a well-
    structured voluntary Programme has
    provided work and learning experiences
    for those who voluntarily signed unto the
    Scheme in 2018. In paragraph nine, the
    Hon Minister said and I quote:
    “In line with the pathways we set above, as an exit arrangement,
    some of the trainees were offered
    permanent employment by the
    lead agencies.”
    Mr Speaker, as a well-structured
    organisation trying to really equip these
    young people with skills, how come they
    do not know and are Answering the
    Question by saying “some”? If it is a pilot programme, they should be able to tell us
    how effective the Programme was, in
    order for them to get into the different
    sections of training. Therefore, the word
    ‘some” as used in the Answer does not give us a good indication of the data that
    we should be comfortable with. Would
    Oral Answers to Questions

    the Hon Minister please explain what she

    means by “some”?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Minister, did you get the question?
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think my
    Hon Colleague is trying to come up with
    his own interpretation of paragraph six
    and nine. Yes, we used “some” because the Question specifically required and
    requested for the transition process and
    the sustainable job creation after their
    exit. The Question did not require for the
    numbers of NABCO trainees who have
    exited or who are seeking for further
    employment, and that is why I said
    “some”. In any case, the NABCO trainees were engaged with about more than 1,000
    agencies and institutions, and the top
    among the lot is the agencies under the
    modules like the Heal Ghana, Educate
    Ghana, Civic Ghana, Digitise Ghana and
    all that, but apart from that, Educate
    Ghana for instance had already taken on
    more than 23,000 trainees. So, if the Hon
    Member wants specific figures he can file
    another Question, and we would be ready
    to address that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very
    well, I was just coming down. Would you
    still want me to go back?
    Mr Peter Lanchene Toobu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, Ministers operate at the policy
    level, and for that matter the Hon Minister
    is a policy officer. The first phase of the
    NABCO Programme as we understand,
    which is the project one, ended in October
    2021. As a policy level officer, I would
    want to know from the Hon Minister,
    what the policy direction of Government
    is, vis-a-vis the NABCO Programme in
    the year 2022.
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I indicated
    in my submission that after the
    exploration of the first batch of NABCO
    trainees in October 2021, the Government
    directed that they should stay at post at
    their various agencies and institutions
    until further directions.
    Mr Yusif Sulemana 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, in
    the Hon Minister's Answer, paragraph three, she stated the objects of the
    Programme. Since it is a pilot
    programme, I would want to find out
    from the Hon Minister what the success
    rate of the pilot programme they have run
    is, and to also know whether she would
    consider recommending to Government
    to continue with the Programme?
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my Hon
    Colleague knows very well that the
    question he is asking is not part of the
    Question the Hon Samuel Okudzeto filed.
    Can he also file another Question to that
    effect?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very
    well. Let me come to Leadership.
    Deputy Minority Leader (Mr
    James Klutse Avedzi): Mr Speaker, I
    think that you are the one to determine
    Oral Answers to Questions

    whether the question is a new question, a

    different question or not, but not the Hon

    Minister.

    Mr Speaker, I am not sure that the Hon

    Minister wants to tell you what you

    should do. You are the one to allow or

    disallow the question, but the Hon

    Minister came in and said the question the

    Hon Member asked is not a

    supplementary question, and you

    accepted. Why?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    It is
    well noted, Hon Member.
    Dr Cassiel Ato Baah Forson 2:10 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, in the Hon Minister's Answer, on page 27 of today's Order Paper, on the third paragraph, it says and I read:
    “On the current roll of NABCO Scheme are 67, 657 trainees from
    the initial 100, 000 enrolled
    tertiary graduates.”
    Mr Speaker, in the Hon Minister's Answer that she provided, she informed
    us that as at October 2021, the contract for
    this NABCO trainees had ended. How
    would the Hon Minister reconcile her
    statement that the contract for this
    NABCO trainees had ended in October
    2021 with the written Answer that she has
    provided that as we speak, 67, 657
    trainees are on the current roll of
    Government?
    Mr Speaker, my second question is for
    the Hon Minister to also inform us
    whether this 67,657 trainees are accruing
    obligation to the State? I say this because
    during the budget sessions we had for the
    2022 Budget Statement, with the office of
    the Government Machinery budget, the
    amount we had under NABCO excluded
    obligations for the year 2022. In fact, the
    only amount that we had there was for the
    purposes of paying the arrears, but now,
    the Hon Minster is telling us that as we
    speak there are no arrears paid,
    meanwhile, we were informed that
    arrears were paid. So, I would want the
    Hon Minister to reconcile the written
    Answer that they are giving to us, vis-a-
    vis the information that were given to us
    at the Committee of Finance. We would
    want to know the status of the 67,657
    trainees and to also know whether they
    have discontinued the Programme or not?
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was not
    privy to the information given to the Hon
    Ato Forson at the Finance Committee or
    wherever the discussion was, so I would
    check and revert.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like to know from the Hon Minister whether generally she would say that the NABCO Programme has been successful? [Interruption]
    Mr Avedzi 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to remind you again of your role to determine whether this should be a fresh question or a supplementary question? This cannot fall under a supplementary question, so I would want to remind you of your role.
    Oral Answers to Questions
    Oral Answers to Questions

    2. 30 p. m.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon Minister, are you minded to answer the question?
    Anyway, let us hear you.
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I indicated
    in my response that the NABCO Scheme
    started with the direct recruitment of
    100,000 tertiary graduates, some of
    whom had been unemployed for nearly a
    decade following the completion of their
    academic study. And I can say that it has
    been a very huge success because out of
    the 100,000, more than 33,000 have
    already exited the Scheme, and I believe
    the 33,000 would have been part of the so
    many people who were part of the
    Unemployed Graduates Association
    (UGA). So, it has been a big success.
    Mr Avedzi 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would like
    to find out from the Hon Minister the
    whereabouts of the 33,000 that exited the
    NABCo?
    Ms Prempeh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is
    about the third time an Hon Colleague is
    asking this same question and as I
    answered earlier, if he files a Question
    specifically asking for the numbers,
    exactly where they are, I would be
    obliged to answer.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    Hon Members, we have brought
    Question Time to a close.
    Hon Minister of State, thank you very
    much for attending upon the House to
    answer Questions from Hon Members.
    Yes, Hon Leader?
    Mr Annoh-Dompreh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    with your leave, could we now go on to
    page 15 of the Order Paper. The
    Leadership have engaged and we can now
    take the Item numbered 24.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    But
    have we taken the item numbered 23?
    Mr Annoh-Dompreh 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    yes, we have.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    -[Pause] -
    Dr Forson 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Question
    must first of all be put on Motion 23 before we can move on to the item numbered 24. But before then, the Hon Minister must explain to us why we should put the Question. The Minister had earlier approached us to inform us that in the original Agreement, Parliament only approved the Loan Agreement and not the Commercial Agreement. So, there is no outstanding Commercial Agreement in which the decision needs to be rescinded but that
    Oral Answers to Questions

    information must come from the Minister himself, for the record.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very
    well. Hon Minister for Health, may we
    hear you?
    Minister for Health (Mr Kwaku-
    Agyeman Manu) (MP): Mr Speaker, I
    would only re-echo what my Hon
    Colleague has just said. We have never
    sent to Parliament any Commercial
    Agreement with regard to this particular
    transaction. What we brought was the
    Loan Agreement because one of the
    suppliers who was actually leading the
    process withdrew. Therefore, when we
    got another person, we had to go to
    another source for funding. So, it became
    necessary to push the Loan Agreement
    earlier than the Commercial Agreement
    before we completed it. That is how come
    it did not come in pair but as a single
    transaction for this one to come and top it
    up. So, he is correct.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    Then Hon Members, the Motion was
    moved and seconded. It has been debated.
    I would now put the Question to the item
    numbered 23 -
    Mr Agyeman-Manu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    think we went beyond the Motion and we
    were coming to a Resolution. That is
    when - [Interruption] -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Minister, the Question was not put.
    Mr Agyeman-Manu 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    am very sorry to take you back a bit
    before you put the Question. Not the
    explanation; there are one or two
    fundamental errors in the whole
    transaction that I would like to correct.
    Mr Speaker, if you look at the Motion,
    we are actually approving Motion 23 for
    construction and equipping of 40-Bed
    District Hospitals at Ayensuano,
    Effiduase and Offinso. The Offinso one
    should be Offinso-North. We already
    have a Christian Health Association of
    Ghana (CHAG) Hospital at Offinso and
    this is going to add on to the existing
    hospitals in Offinso when Offinso-North
    has not got a hospital. There is an
    omission there, that should be Offinso-
    North. Therefore, consequentially, all the
    records should reflect Offinso-North,
    instead of just Offinso so that we would
    locate this at Akomadan, instead of
    Offinso.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very
    well. So now, the Question is—
    Dr Isaac Y. Opoku 2:10 p.m.
    - rose -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Member for Offinso-South, you can
    kindly speak.
    Oral Answers to Questions
    Oral Answers to Questions
    Dr Isaac Y. Opoku 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    have an issue. Originally, the project was
    for Offinso South. I asked the Minister
    and he said we have a hospital at Offinso
    South -- St. Patrick Hospital. Mr Speaker, St. Patrick Hospital is not a
    government hospital. This hospital
    project was originally for Offinso South.
    Mr Speaker, we would not agree. It is
    not fair. [Hear! Hear!] Why are we
    treating Offinso South like that? We
    would not agree! They just called me
    from Offinso that they are taking the
    project from Offinso South. Mr Speaker,
    we have gotten the land and everything.
    We would not agree. It would not happen!
    Why are we treating Offinso South like
    that? It would never ever happen. We
    would not agree. Why? Are the people of
    Offinso South not part of this country?
    Why? We want to take Offinso South out
    of everything. Originally, it was Offinso
    South. I asked the Minister and he said it
    is for Offinso South. Mr Speaker, we
    would not agree. [Hear! Hear!] -
    [Interruption]-
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Members! Hon Members!
    Hon Minister for Health, may you
    please clarify some of these issues for us?
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Yes,
    Deputy Majority Leader?
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    with your leave, I would pray that we
    place this matter on ice for further
    consultation. So, Mr Speaker,
    accordingly, this Motion be put on ice.
    Mr Speaker, we can proceed with the
    Item numbered 33 - [Interruption]. [Pause]-
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, I do not see the hullabaloo
    about this. Please Hon Deputy Minority
    Leader, —
    Mr Avedzi 2:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you
    very much. I would like to support the
    Deputy Majority Leader that we put the
    Motion on hold so that the issue is sorted
    out. In fact, the Member of Parliament for
    Offinso South says that the project is for
    his constituency because the people of
    Offinso South also need a hospital. If
    there is confusion, then we need to clear
    it before the Question is put. So I support
    him; let us put it on hold until we resolve
    it before we put the Question.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    We will hold on with the Motion 23.
    Oral Answers to Questions
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, let us have some attention here.
    Let us turn to the page numbered 19, the
    item numbered 33.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    with your leave, the Hon Deputy
    Attorney-General is in the Chamber, and
    would do that on behalf of the learned
    Attorney-General who is unavoidably
    absent.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 a.m.
    Motion
    -- Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice, you may do that on
    behalf of your Minister.
    MOTIONS 2:40 a.m.

    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 a.m.
    Hon
    Member, this is a procedural Motion.
    Mr A. Forson 2:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, our
    Standing Orders are clear. Anytime you
    are suspending the Orders, you need to
    give us reasons why you want the Orders
    to be suspended. So, I would urge the Hon
    Deputy Minister for Justice to tell us why
    they want the Order to be suspended in
    line with our Standing Orders.
    Ms Dapaah 2:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    respectfully, I have been here for two
    weeks, and it is only on Friday that the
    Question was put.
    Mr Avedzi 2:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon
    Ranking Member for the Finance
    Committee demanded that the reason for
    the suspension of the Standing Order
    should be given by the Hon Deputy
    Attorney-General, and she stood up to say
    that she has been here for two weeks. Is
    that the reason for the suspension of the
    Standing Orders? We want the Deputy
    Attorney-General to tell us why we
    should suspend the Standing Order in
    order to take the Bill through the
    Consideration Stage. She should tell us
    and then we would support her, but if she
    does not have any good reason, then we
    would move to another Motion.

    Chairman of the Committee (Mr

    Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi): Mr

    Speaker, I wish to remind the Hon Deputy

    Minority Leader that this Bill has been on

    our books for more than two weeks now,

    and that is what the Deputy Attorney-

    General drew attention to. She has been

    waiting, and the Committee is ready to do

    the Consideration of the Bill. If we do not

    go by the procedural Motion and abridge

    the time, we cannot start the

    Consideration Stage. That is what she

    meant when she said that she has been on

    this Bill for two weeks. So kindly indulge

    us for us to do the consideration of this

    Bill.

    Mr Speaker, on that note, I beg to

    second the Motion.

    Question put and Motion agreed to.

    Resolved accordingly.
    Mr Afenyo-Markin 2:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    with respect, we shall now proceed to
    item numbered 34.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, the item numbered 34 -- Consideration Stage of the Criminal and
    Other Offences (Procedure)
    (Amendment) Bill, 2021.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 a.m.
    Hon
    Member for Bongo, Sitting was extended
    even before I took the Chair so -
    Mr Edward Abambire Bawa 2:40 a.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I didn't even speak. I have another issue.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 a.m.
    Hon
    Members, we will start with clause 1.
    Chairman of the Committee, let us hear
    you.
    BILLS - CONSIDERATION 2:40 a.m.

    STAGE 2:40 a.m.

    Mr Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor 2:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I want to follow my Hon
    Chairman but I am struggling to. The
    advertised amendment is on page 19 of
    the Order Paper.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:40 a.m.
    Hon
    Member, the amendment is not
    advertised.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:40 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    sought permission that the one I just
    moved is not advertised. That is why I
    sought the leave of Mr Speaker, so that
    we would follow from paragraphs (a), (b)
    and (c). I can also finish that and bring the
    word “or” in.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    follow my Hon Chairman now however,
    I think the position of “or” is still valid and this is why. If you take a look at the
    Bill, with the advertised amendments, it
    means that we have three sub-provisions
    under section 162A. Now, if the
    amendment is carried, it would mean that
    we would have:
    “(a) to reduce an offence charge to a lesser offence
    (b) to withdraw a charge against
    an accused person”
    My position is that if paragraph (c) is
    carried, then the Hon Chairman's prayer that “or” be deleted after paragraph (a) would be valid. However, my position is
    that we do not need paragraph (b) if we
    are going to carry paragraph (c) because
    in paragraph (a), we are saying that we
    would reduce an offence charged to a
    lesser offence.

    Mr Speaker, to withdraw a charge

    against an accused person - to withdraw a charge also means an offence. It means

    that the person would not stand trial at all,

    but the essence of plea bargaining is not

    to acquit a person of an offence; it is

    either to reduce the charge or to reduce a

    sentence. However, the effect of

    paragraph (b) is that a charge would be

    withdrawn against an accused person

    completely. Mr Speaker, my difficulty is

    that if paragraph (c), as proposed or

    advertised, is carried, then, I would move

    that paragraph (b) should be deleted

    because the purpose for plea bargaining -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, why do you not allow us to take
    it step by step? You have put all the three
    paragraphs together; let us deal with them
    one after the other.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    because my position is that if paragraph
    (c) is carried and paragraph (b) is deleted,
    then, the prayer by the Hon Chairman that
    the “or” be deleted, would be rendered
    nugatory. The word “or” would still be
    important in the scheme of things, but I
    would be guided. I would let us go
    through methodically then I could come
    back to canvas my position.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, do you not think that if it is
    carried, this amendment would be
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    inconsequential? Let us move one after

    the other.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:50 p.m.
    Very well, Mr
    Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, let us hear you.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if
    I have your leave, may I move the
    amendments in subclause 1 together?
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move section
    162A (1), at the end of paragraph (a),
    delete “or”; then at the end of paragraph (b), insert “or”, and then after paragraph (b), insert another clause which may be
    paragraph (c), to read “to reduce the punishment for an offence charged”.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, do you think it is proper to
    move three amendments at the same
    time?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    because my Hon Friend raised the issue
    of the -- that is why I sought your leave. The first amendment is to delete “or” at the end of the section 162A(1) (a).
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, section 162A(1) (b)?
    Second Deputy Minority Whip (Ms
    Comfort D. Cudjoe Ghansah): Mr
    Speaker, before you continue, I would
    want to urge that the bell should be rung
    for Hon Members to know that the House
    is still in session, and that we are doing
    extended Sitting. Although we did not
    make provision for lunch for Hon
    Members, we are here working so,
    nobody should leave. The Hon Deputy
    Attorney-General and Deputy Minister
    for Justice should know the effort we are
    putting in to make sure that this Bill is
    passed so that when it gets to court and
    other issues, they would know how to
    handle Parliament properly. She should
    know the efforts that we are putting in
    place.
    Mr Speaker, let them ring the bell
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    Yes, Hon Chairman of the
    Committee?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    section 162 -
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, hold on. The Hon Second
    Deputy Majority Whip, would like to
    respond to an issue.
    Second Deputy Majority Whip (Ms Lydia S. Alhassan): Mr Speaker, I would want to assure the Hon Second Deputy Minority Whip that the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    for Justice has taken note, and she would do the needful.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon Chairman, let us hear you.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this amendment too has not been advertised, but I would want to proffer an amendment to it.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move that section
    162A(1)(b), line 2, at the end of “person”, insert “or”.
    The new rendition would read: “to withdraw a charge against an accused
    person; or”. This is because we have advertised another clause to be added.
    Mr Kobina T. Hammond 2:50 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I thought that was the point my
    Hon Colleague raised. The Hon Deputy
    Attorney-General and Deputy Minister
    for Justice is in the House so I think she
    is concentrating on this. What is the point
    about paragraph (b) itself? Hon
    Dafeamekpor raised the point about plea
    bargain that there is a charge against a
    person and the person tries to plead
    around it, but this actually says the charge
    should be withdrawn all together. Is that
    part of plea bargain?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, did you hear what the Hon
    Member for Adansi Asokwa said?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    overhead my Hon Friend and my Hon
    Senior also talk about that. First, the
    whole clause talks about reduction of an
    offence charged, and then to withdraw a
    charge. The two are not the same. The
    third paragraph that we seek to add is to
    reduce the punishment. They are three
    different things. We could withdraw a
    charge completely. Plea bargain could
    lead to withdrawal of a charge, and it
    could lead to the reduction of the
    punishment. We could also remove some
    of the charges against the person. For
    instance, if we have about five or six
    charges, we may withdraw some of the
    charges to about two or three. So, all the
    three are important, and we do not have
    to be confused with any of them.
    Dr Dominic A. Ayine 2:50 p.m.
    Speaker, in
    support of what the Hon Chairman has
    said, plea bargaining as a policy tool has
    a number of uses. In some circumstances,
    a withdrawal may be necessary in order
    to aid the prosecution. So, in some
    situation where for instance, there is more
    than one accused person, and one of them
    is willing to help the prosecution, charges
    may be withdrawn against that accused
    person so the person would cooperate
    with the prosecution for purposes of
    prosecuting the case of the State. It is in
    the circumstance that the charge may be
    withdrawn. In the situation where it is
    only one accused person and for example,
    there are multiple charges as the Hon
    Chairman has said, it may still be possible
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    to withdraw one charge in exchange for

    cooperation from the accused. That is the

    reason the provision is there, and it is a

    very useful one.
    Mr Francis-Xavier Sosu 2:50 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, in support of what the Hon
    Chairman has said, it is entirely possible
    that plea bargaining may not even lead to
    charging an accused person at all
    depending on the level of admission of
    the offence and the cooperation the
    person may want to give to the Attorney-
    General in the prosecution of the matter.
    So, the position as has been eruditely
    expressed by the Hon Chairman is indeed
    the position.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, do you want to give us a
    different -- otherwise, let us continue. Everybody has spoken in favour of the
    amendment.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 2:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    raised the issue.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 2:50 p.m.
    All
    right, let us hear you.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    raised the issue, but I have been guided by
    the Memorandum of the Bill. If I may
    refer you to paragraph 3 of the
    Memorandum, it reads:
    “While plea bargaining may result in the withdrawal of charges
    entirely, in exchange for a
    promise to assist in the
    prosecution of others …”
    Mr Speaker, on this note, I would want
    to amend my earlier position and agree
    that indeed, it can so happen that as part
    of the bargain, one may actually be a free
    man and become “a prosecution witness” and testify to -
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Hon
    Ahiafor, you will have the last say.
    Mr Bernard Ahiafor 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    am speaking with a particular reference to
    the existing paragraph (b) which is ‘‘to withdraw a charge against an accused
    person''. I am reading this as against section 162H which gives the power to
    court to reject a plea bargaining
    agreement.
    Mr Speaker, if the plea bargaining
    agreement is to the effect that the charge
    against the person is going to be
    withdrawn, practically, once the charge is
    withdrawn, the court has no option than
    to discharge the accused person. How
    would the court be able to exercise its
    discretion to decide whether or not to
    accept the plea bargaining if the result of
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    the plea bargaining would lead to a

    withdrawal of the charge?

    Mr Speaker, we all know that we

    cannot put something on nothing and

    expect it to stand. Once the charge before

    the court against the accused person is

    withdrawn, the court has no option but to

    say that the accused person, consequent

    upon the withdrawal of the charge, he or

    she is discharged. The court cannot

    exercise the power in deciding whether or

    not to accept the terms of the plea

    bargaining. I am raising this issue

    because we may be confronted with the

    practical situation in the courtroom.
    Mr Hammond 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I was
    tempted to go along with what was started
    over there, but it has been explained and
    I think the Deputy Attorney-General or
    Hon Chairman might have to clarify this.
    Apparently, paragraph (b) has not
    been put there for nothing; the words
    have clearly been chosen with care.
    Paragraph (b) is ‘to withdraw' -- I was wondering how the paragraph (b) that I
    complained about sits in well with section
    162H (1) and (2), but it looks like it sits
    comfortably because paragraph (b) is “to withdraw a charge…” and apparently, not “the charge”. We are told that if it is ‘the charge', that would be nolle prosequi and so if it is ‘a charge', then there is no offence to the section 162H(2) that we are
    talking about.
    With that clarification, if that is right,
    the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and
    Deputy Minister for Justice, we could go
    along and accept the clause as it is.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Hon
    Ahiafor, let us move on.
    Mr Ahiafor 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we need to
    get this clear. Probably, I would have to
    read 162H: “The Court shall not accept a plea agreement unless the Court is
    satisfied that …”.
    This means that one can enter into a
    plea agreement leading to a withdrawal of
    the charge, and then the Court would have
    the right to say, no. However, in this case,
    practically, once the prosecution appears
    before the Court to say that if it is a charge
    of stealing, they are withdrawing the
    charge of stealing against a person, there
    is nothing before the Court, and the
    accused person would have to be
    discharged. So, how would the Court be
    able to exercise the power we are giving
    under section 162H?
    Mr Hammond 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think
    the issue is slightly been conflicted by the
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    Hon Member. Do not let us assume that

    there is only one issue we are discussing;

    there are three sub-paragraphs there and

    so, if the first one does not raid in the

    individual, it is likely that he or she slips

    into one or the other remaining

    paragraphs. So, we should not be very

    particular about just paragraph (b) and

    assume that one's charge would always be withdrawn and the other elements

    would not be triggered. That is not it.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Yes,
    Hon Chairman, I would come to you to
    conclude.
    Mr Sosu 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the
    fears expressed by the Hon Ranking
    Member may be very germane, I
    respectfully submit that that may arise
    particularly given the fact that the
    Attorney-General already under article 88
    of the Constitution has the power at any
    point in time to enter nolle prosequi. So
    that being the case, and in exercising the
    power of nolle prosequi, the Court does
    not even have the power to enquire why
    the Attorney-General may be entering the
    nolle prosequi or not.
    That being the case, I believe that it is
    all right at any point in time if a plea
    bargaining leads to withdrawal of a
    charge, I am sure the Court is informed
    that the charge has been withdrawn and
    that is it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, do you need to - I think the Hon Member has clarified it.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg
    to move that ‘The clause', section 162A, section (1), insert the following paragraph:
    “(c) to reduce the punishment for an offence charged.”.
    Question put and amendment agreed to.
    Clause 162B - Authorisation of plea bargaining
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg
    to move that ‘the clause', section 162A, subsection (2), paragraph (c) line 2, after
    “person” insert the following: “with the prior consent of the accused person.”
    Mr Speaker, it would read 3 p.m.
    “Where the accused person with the prior consent of the accused is
    represented by counsel the plea
    negotiation shall be between the
    prosecutor and counsel for the
    accused person”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    Clause 162A as amended ordered to

    stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, the item numbered 34(iii).
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move that section 162B,
    subsection (1), line 3, delete “matter” and insert “case”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, that - section 162B,
    subsection (3), line 3, after “or”, delete “of”.
    Mr Speaker, it would now read 3:10 p.m.
    ‘For the purposes of subsection (2) an officer of the Office of the
    Attorney-General means a person
    holding a post or a rank specified
    in subsection (3) of section (3) of
    the Law Offices Act'.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 162B as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 162C -- Initiation of plea negotiation
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, section 162C, subsection
    (2), line 1, after “shall” delete “at” and insert “before”.
    Mr Speaker, the new rendition would
    be: ‘The prosecutor shall, before the commencement of the plea negotiations,
    inform the accused person of the right of
    the accused person'.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, subclause (4), line 2, delete
    “matter” and insert “case”.
    Mr Speaker, this is a consequential
    amendment.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 162C as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 162D -- Disclosures in plea bargaining
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move section 162D, subsection (1),
    line 1, delete “on” and insert “before”.
    It would now read: ‘The prosecutor shall, before the commencement of plea
    negotiations, …'
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    Mr Speaker, this is a consequential

    amendment.

    Question put and amendment agreed

    to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move section 162D, subsection
    (2), paragraph (e), lines 3 and 4, delete
    “whether the prosecutor intends to tender the document at the trial or not”.
    Mr Speaker, it would now read 3:10 p.m.
    ‘‘a document in the possession of the
    prosecutor or the investigator relevant to
    the case,'
    Mr Avedzi 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, could the
    Hon Chairman give us the reason why
    that phrase should be deleted? The Bill
    came with that so there must be a reason
    they want to delete that whole phrase so
    the Hon Chairman should explain it to us.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    do not know why he is asking us to
    explain because I thought it is self-
    explanatory.
    Mr Speaker, subsection (2) reads 3:10 p.m.
    “Unless prohibited by any other enactment, the materials and
    documents referred to in subsection
    (1) include ”
    (e) a document in the
    possession of the prosecutor
    or the investigator relevant to
    the case”.
    Mr Speaker, the bit about “whether the
    prosecutor intends to tender the document
    at the trial or not” is taken out because we
    are now in the era of full disclosure.
    Hence, whether the prosecutor would rely
    on it or not, it would still have to be
    disclosed so, that statement there is otiose
    and of no use. That is why it must be
    crossed out.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:10 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    would propose a new subclause soon, and
    I would urge the Hon Deputy Minority
    Leader that when I propose it, he would
    understand the rendition better.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:10 p.m.
    The
    item numbered (ix).
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move that section 162D,
    subsection (2), paragraph (f) lines 4, 5
    and 6, delete the words, “whether the prosecutor intends to tender the
    photograph, audio, video or electronic
    recording in evidence or not”.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Mr
    Chairman, let us move to item numbered
    x.
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move that section 162D, insert a
    new subsection after subsection (2) as
    follows:
    “(3) The prosecutor shall make available to the accused person or
    counsel for the accused person,
    the documents and materials
    referred to in subsection (2)
    whether or not the prosecutor
    intends to tender the documents or
    materials in evidence at the trial.”
    Mr Speaker, this is to take care of the
    earlier deletions that we have made so
    that there would not be any redundancies.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 162D as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    We
    would now move to item numbered xi.
    Clause 162E - Consultation with interested parties
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, section 162E, delete
    subclause (2) and insert the following:
    “(2) A victim or a complainant in a case who objects to the terms of the
    plea agreement may
    (a) cause a statement to be filed as
    part of the plea agreement
    detailing the grounds for -- the
    objection for the consideration of
    the Court; and
    (b) serve the accused person with
    a copy of the statement.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 162E as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Mr
    Chairman, let us move to the item
    numbered xii.
    C;aise 162F -- Form of Plea Agreement
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, section 162F, subsection (5)
    lines 2 and 3, delete “prosecutor or the investigator” and insert “prosecutor, investigator or an interested party”.
    Mr Speaker, we have added another
    “interested party” here.
    Thank you, Mr Speaker.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 162F as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, let us move to the item
    numbered xiii.
    Clause 162G - Consideration of Plea Agreement by the Court
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, section 162G, delete
    subsection (1) and insert the following:
    “(1) Where a plea agreement is concluded, the prosecutor shall
    within seven days cause a copy of
    the plea agreement to be
    (a) filed in court; and
    (b) served on the accused
    person or counsel for the accused
    person.”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Ahiafor 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, before you
    put the Question on the entire clause, I
    would want to suggest a further
    amendment based on the previous one.
    We are now including an interested party
    so would it be better if a copy as filed by
    the prosecutor is also served to an
    interested party?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    Mr
    Chairman, are you in agreement with the
    Hon Member?
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    though this would not cause any harm, I
    would want to draw my Hon Colleague's attention to the fact that once we include
    his suggestion in the Bill, if the person is
    not served -- We are not referring to someone standing in for a person who
    may be visually impaired and another
    person would have to come in because
    once we put that in and the person is not
    served, it means we cannot proceed with
    that. As a practitioner, I would want his
    views on that.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:20 p.m.
    So
    Hon Members, can I put the question on
    section 162G?
    Mr Ahiafor, did you propose an
    amendment or just passed a comment?
    Mr Ahiafor 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is a
    proposal by way of a suggestion to the
    Chairman of the Committee that looking
    at the Plea Bargaining Agreement, the
    prosecutor is on one part and the accused
    person or counsel for the accused is on the
    other part and the interested person is also
    involved.

    So my suggestion to the Chairman of

    the Committee for consideration of the

    House is that once we are saying that the

    prosecutor shall file the plea bargaining

    agreement within seven days and a copy

    served on the accused person or counsel

    for the accused person for the interested

    party to also know the nature of the

    document that has been filed, would it not

    be fair and just that a notice of the

    document is also served on the interested

    party? If it is agreeable, then the drafters

    can even help us come out with a good

    rendition.

    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, may I know from you if it is an
    amendment to -
    Mr Ahiafor 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, then it will
    come by way of an amendment because
    the rendition, as it is, is left out to the
    interested parties after the filing of the
    document. Notice is not required to be
    served on the interested party.
    Meanwhile, the interested party was
    consulted at the time of the agreement,
    but at the time of filing the document in
    court, that person would not be served
    with notice. So, the proposal that I have
    made is that three people enter into an
    agreement however, after that agreement
    is filed in court, it means that only the
    accused person or counsel for the accused
    person who would be served, but the
    interested party would not be served with
    the document. How would the interested
    party know that what has been agreed
    upon is what is actually filed in court? It
    is on that basis that I would like to
    propose for consideration that the
    interested party be served the filed
    document.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Yes,
    Hon Deputy Attorney-General?
    Ms D. A. Dapaah 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    respectfully, I wish to differ from the
    proposition by Hon Ahiafor for four main
    reasons. First, in that an interested party
    is not a party to the plea agreement;
    secondly that person came in for purposes
    of interpreting the terms of the plea
    agreement to the blind person or the
    illiterate.
    Mr Speaker, the Chairman raised the
    issue that we may run ourselves into
    challenges where that interested party
    who may have been fleeting is not found.
    The question is what happens if there is
    no service on this interested party who
    may not be found? It suffices to say that
    blind or illiterate persons are capable of
    keeping their possessions including plea
    agreements, which after it is interpreted
    to them have their signature or thump
    prints on them. So, based on this, I do not
    think that it is necessary, because there is
    a term there that if they shall, the plea
    agreement shall be served on these
    persons. If we include the interested
    party, he is not a party to the plea
    agreement, and also the other reasons that
    I have advanced.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Yes
    Hon Member, are you clear?
    Mr Ahiafor 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the item
    numbered (xi), Section 162E, delete
    subclause (2) and insert the following:
    “(2) A victim or a complainant in a case who objects to the terms of
    the plea agreement may
    (a) cause a statement to be
    filed as part of the plea
    agreement detailing the
    grounds for the
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    objection for the

    consideration of the

    Court; and

    (b) serve the accused

    person with a copy of

    the statement.

    Mr Speaker, from this, I understand

    that the victim or the interested party is in

    the picture that is why they would have

    the ability to even object to the terms of

    agreement. If they have no notice of what

    is actually filed in court, then it is possible

    to see document A, but the one that is

    actually filed in court, they have not seen

    it because a copy of that has not been

    served on him. So, it is on this basis that I

    propose that the actual document that

    would be filed must also be given, so that

    if there is something different, at that

    point, that person can also raise it. This

    would cause no harm.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    would want to remind the House that I am
    leading what the Committee has agreed
    on. We proposed this victim because
    early on, there were clauses that had
    provided for such arrangements. I would
    want to draw my Hon Colleague's attention that we cannot equate the
    interested party here to the victim. This is
    a special provision of a victim of a crime.
    But when we are talking about the
    interested party, for the purposes of
    translation and others -- So, we cannot
    equate the two. So, my Hon Friend may
    consider withdrawing his proposed
    amendment for us to proceed.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, my
    understanding of the Hon Ranking
    Members' position is that it is about disclosure. The third party needs to have
    full disclosure of what is to be filed. The
    Chief Justice has a practiced direction on
    disclosures in our criminal prosecutions.
    So, it is important we listen to him, and
    accommodate his position.
    Mr Speaker, I agree with the
    Chairman that at the Committee level, we
    might have taken certain decisions but
    they are merely recommendations to the
    House. This is the House, if we gauge the
    mood of the House and we think that his
    position can be accommodated in the Bill
    and it does not harm the provision, we
    should be able to accommodate it.
    Mr Ahiafor 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the last
    point on the issue is that, practically, a
    criminal matter is between the Republic,
    which is the prosecution, and the accused
    person. The victim or the complainant is
    who we refer to in court as an interested
    person. That is why if a person is a
    counsel for a victim, that person can only
    hold a watching brief for somebody who
    is interested in the prosecution of the
    matter; that person does not have a voice.
    But once the law says a person can object
    to the terms that are filed, what is wrong
    if that person is served with the
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    document? There is nothing wrong with

    it.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    Hon Members, I would put the
    Question as a further amendment -
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    before you proceed, I think my Hon
    Colleague proposed an amendment. I
    would urge him -- Among the reasons that my Hon Colleague has given is to go
    back to talk about a clause that we had
    dealt with on the victim of a crime.
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member's
    attention must be drawn to the fact that
    the victim there must not be equated to an
    interested party. The ‘interested party'
    here is only for translation and other
    things when the accused person needs
    one. Therefore, if we say that we have to
    serve the person at the time that that
    person had actually helped as an
    interested party to interpret, then the next
    line one would want to proceed on the
    matter, he or she may not even find the
    same person to proceed. That is why I
    would urge the Hon Member to drop the
    amendment.
    Mr Ahiafor 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, if the use of
    the interested party is causing the
    problem -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, I have not invited you.
    Hon Ahiafor, will you abandon -
    Mr Ahiafor 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the point I
    would like to make is that if the use of the
    “interested party” is what is causing the
    ambiguity, then we can go by the
    language and use ‘a victim or the
    complainant'.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    So,
    would it not affect the previous clauses
    that you have dealt with?
    Mr Ahiafor 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no. Once
    the victim or the complainant is also
    served with the document, it would
    enable him or her to also raise objection
    if the need be.
    3. 40 p.m.
    Mr K. T. Hammond 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    think we can leave it as it is. There is a
    policy reason. What is says “served on the accused person or counsel for the accused
    person…,” we are talking about the legal one. Let us get the victim, the
    complainant and the “interested party” clear. It is being explained to us, the role
    they play. They are not really parties to
    what is going on here.
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    The State takes over the prosecution of

    the matter, and the victim does not feature

    prominently here. So, when the

    agreement is reached and the court is

    happy with it -- We should remember that they already had the opportunity to

    object to whatever is referred to in clause

    162E. They have already played a role

    here, and the matter is now handed over

    to the judge to conclude. So, if it is

    concluded and the judge agrees to it, it is

    no longer for the complainant or the

    victim. In fact, we are told that the

    interested party rarely features for an

    interpreter, which is required for specific

    individuals who are so handicapped, who

    have been mentioned in the Bill. So, they

    do not at this stage feature prominently in

    the matter. I think that it is right that we

    leave them out and leave the subclause as

    it is. The Question may now be put.
    Mr Sosu 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want
    to help the discussion. From the
    submission of the Hon Ahiafor, I got the
    impression that when he said “interested party”, he was referring to the victim of a crime. Now, from the explanation given
    by the Deputy Attorney-General, she
    made it very clear that with reference to
    “interested party” here, we are talking about a person who would interpret the
    text of a plea agreement in situations
    where the law requires that interpretation
    must be done.
    So, I believe that we can rectify this
    situation. This is because once a person is
    brought before the court, the person
    becomes a prisoner of the court. So,
    anybody, whether elected or given the
    power to interpret the text of a plea
    agreement, would be an officer of a court.
    So, I think that it would save all of us this
    back and forth if in place of the
    “interested party”, we can substitute the phrase “an officer of the court who would interpret the plea agreement to the
    person”. Under those circumstances, there would not be any obligation to serve
    that officer of the court any copy of that
    agreement again. I just would want to
    propose this, if that would help the
    amendment such that in terms of the
    “interested party”, we could say “an officer of the court who would interpret
    to the person''.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    think that the issue is the interpretation
    that the sponsors are placing on third
    parties or interested parties, so we must
    be careful there. Our intention is not to
    describe those people as “interested parties” because they are supposed to be officers of the court.
    When the court is not in the position to
    get an officer of equivalent status, they
    fall on another court to produce such an
    officer to assist. So, in those terms, the
    intention of this House is not to have
    those persons served. However, if the
    meaning ascribed to “interested parties” is what my Hon Ranking Member is
    canvassing, then his position is well
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    founded. So, if the sponsors can clarify

    the meaning of “interested parties” in the scheme of things, then they can carry the

    House along.
    Mr Sosu 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, when we look
    at the process of the plea bargaining, it is
    entirely possible that one can pleads
    bargain at the point of arrest or even
    before the matter gets to court. So, my
    fear again is that if we equate that
    interested person to only a court official,
    it can be a problem. I think there is a
    practiced direction already where we
    have independent witnesses, who play
    that role. So, in place of “interested party,” “person” and “court officials”, if we say “an independent witness who would interpret the text of the agreement
    to the parties or the party that require that
    service” I am sure that it would solve that problem because there is no requirement
    of serving a copy of the agreement on
    such independent witness.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    am grateful for the contributions that have
    been made by my Hon Colleagues. I think
    that what is creating the
    misunderstanding is the “interested party”, and I pray that we flag that clause while I consult the drafters to report back
    tomorrow if the insertion of the phrase
    “an independent witness” would be more appropriate.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    So, we are holding on to that. The Hon
    Ahiafor should hold on, we would come
    back. We should move on so that when
    they come out with clearer positions, then
    we can also hear him.
    Hon Members, let us move on to the
    item numbered (xiv).
    The Clause - Acceptance of a plea agreement
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, section 162H, subsection (4)
    paragraph (b) line 2, insert “on the original charge” after “person”. So, the new rendition would read: “Make an order for the trial of the accused person
    on the original charge.”
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Clause 162H as amended is ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:30 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, we would move on to the item
    numbered xv, by the Chairman of the
    Committee.
    The Clause - Consideration of sentence
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, section 162I, delete
    subsection (5) and insert the following:
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    “( 5) Where the Court is satisfied that the sentence recommended is

    appropriate, the Court shall

    sentence the accused person in

    accordance with the plea

    agreement.”

    Question put and amendment agreed

    to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, section 162I, subsection (6)
    line 3, delete “sentence” and insert “plea agreement”.

    Question put and amendment agreed

    to.

    Clause 162(I) ordered to stand part of

    Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, let us now move to item
    numbered (xvii).
    The Clause -- Rejection of plea agreement
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, section 162(J), insert a new
    subsection before subclause (1) as
    follows:
    “(#) A Court may reject a plea agreement in accordance with
    law.”
    Mr Ahiafor 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, this is just
    for clarification. it is clear that by this
    provision, a court may reject a plea
    agreement in accordance with law. And
    we were told at commencement that the
    plea bargaining agreement may lead to a
    reduction in the sentence; reduction in the
    charges; and the withdrawal of the
    charges. So, are we, by this provision,
    saying that if the option available in a plea
    bargaining agreement is the withdrawal
    of the charge, the court is being
    strengthened to reject? That is the
    clarification I seek.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Yes, the Chairman or Deputy Attorney- General, may you give some clarification?
    Ms D. D. Dapaah 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I think that the particular provision is envisaging, for instance, where the law has set the parameters in terms of the number of years of imprisonment that may be given a convicted person. So, if the plea agreement is such that the agreement is to give the accused person lower than the years that the law prescribes, then that may be rejected.
    And that is why there is a clarification that ‘in accordance with law', so that even if — a Judge may not reject an agreement which seeks to withdraw a charge because it is clearly within the law as we earlier saw in Section 162(1).
    Mr Ahiafor 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the House may agree with me that flowing from
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    Section 162 (A), by your permission let me read:

    “Subject to Section 162(B), a person charged with a criminal offence, may at any time before judgement, negotiate with the Attorney-General for a plea agreement

    (a) to reduce an offence

    charged to a lesser

    offence; or

    (b) to withdraw a charge

    against an accused person;

    or

    (c) to reduce the sentence

    of which the person is

    charged.

    These are the remedies available that

    the accused person charged with an

    offence before judgement could do. And

    it definitely includes withdrawal of the

    charge against the accused person. And

    we have a clause that says that a court

    may reject a plea agreement in

    accordance with law. So, clearly, a plea

    agreement may lead to a withdrawal of

    the charge. If we have a nebulous clause

    that the ‘court may reject a plea agreement in accordance with law', that is what informs my question as to

    whether in a circumstance like this, the

    court can say the withdrawal is not in

    accordance with law; therefore, I reject it.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    would like to reiterate the point that I am
    only leading the Committee, and my
    Ranking Member is raising an issue that
    we had already agreed on.
    Mr Speaker, what the Hon Ranking
    Member is saying, in my view, may be
    right. On the paragraph (a), if the words
    are ‘charges' or ‘the charge', but the words are chosen correctly. A charge - you may have about five or six charges
    and one of them may be withdrawn. So,
    to equate — and I listened to his sentences when he was making his
    argument; he preceded it with the definite
    article ‘the', which would be the case that the entire charge had been withdrawn.
    Mr Speaker, I think I have invoked my
    brother, Hon Dominic, to add his voice to
    this.
    Mr Ahiafor 3:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we should
    not proceed on an assumption that it is
    only a person faced with multiplicity of
    charges that can subject himself to a plea
    bargaining. There could be a single
    charge against you, but you could also
    apply for a plea bargaining, and you
    would not be denied. So, let us not move
    with the assumption that it is only people
    with multiple charges against them that
    may come under this particular law. A
    person charged with an offence can also
    choose to go by a plea bargaining. In that
    case, there are no multiple offences, but
    that is the single offence that the Judge
    may withdraw. So, the discretion that we
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    are giving to the Judges— I have even discussed this extensively with the

    Chairman of the Committee.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 3:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Ahiafor, are you proposing an
    amendment to what has already been
    proposed? This is because you are the
    Ranking MembeR and all these
    amendments have been discussed
    together, and that does not preclude you
    from raising issues here but then, if it is a
    further amendment, just say so and let us
    move on.
    Mr Ahiafor 4 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the
    difficulty that I have, and maintain from
    day one, is the plea bargaining resulting
    into a complete withdrawal of the charge
    against the accused person, but I was
    made to understand that it is possible.
    Now, with this possibility, the
    challenges are confronting us because I
    know in a criminal trial, once the
    prosecution appears before the Judge to
    say that he is withdrawing the charge
    against the accused person, the court may
    not even question the prosecution as to
    why he or she is withdrawing. Then, the
    court would say consequent upon the
    withdrawal of the charge against the
    accused person, the accused person is
    discharged. That is what happens.
    We were told by our visitors that a plea
    bargaining in their country does not even
    include the court but in our context, we
    are including the court and giving some
    powers to the court. They made all of us
    aware that it is a conference room
    practice, where they decide whether the
    plea bargaining between the prosecution,
    the victim and the accused person is
    possible. They would only go and
    announce that the matter has been
    resolved at the conference level; but we
    are looking at the possibility of the matter
    being before a court of competent
    jurisdiction and before a judgement is
    passed there can be a plea bargaining.
    That is why my thinking is that assuming
    someone is facing a charge of stealing
    and before judgement, he sought for a
    plea bargaining which should result into
    the withdrawal of the charge and once the
    charge is withdrawn, there is nothing
    before the court.
    And now we are saying the Court is
    being given a discretion to reject…

    In all, we are saying that the court is

    being given a discretion to reject the plea

    bargaining. So, what I want to understand

    is, in the circumstances of that nature, can

    the court say that the charge against the

    person should not be withdrawn? I am

    doing all these because of the principle in

    Pepper v Hart that a parliamentary debate

    such as this is a guide to an interpretation.
    Mr Kobina T. Hammond 4 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, firstly, let us deal with Pepper v
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    Hart. The Hon Member should get it right

    as that is not what Pepper v Hart says.

    The Hon Member should be careful about

    that. I was around when that decision was

    made so we should be careful about that.

    There are many conditions about the

    application of Pepper v Hart. The Hon

    Member has not read them so let us keep

    them where they are. I could take ten

    minutes to guide him if he is ready for that

    but this is not a forum for that.

    Mr Speaker, I am slightly disappointed

    about the point that the Hon Member has

    gone back to. That point is where the plea

    bargain might lead to the withdrawal of

    the charge against a particular individual.

    We did well to explain the context in

    which that decision could be taken. So, as

    to why the Hon Member brings it back to

    relate to Section 162J is

    incomprehensible.

    Mr Speaker, that section there cannot

    be looked at in isolation. A court may

    reject a plea bargain agreement in

    accordance with the law. The answer is in

    Section 162L. If we look at Section 162L,

    we would see what it is all about. They

    said that there must be finality to

    whatever, and we would deal with all of

    these and the plea bargain as it says here.

    Notwithstanding that, and despite

    subsection (1) which we have here - that

    is the law that we are talking about. If in

    the end it turns out that the agreement was

    procured by any of this, that is the law and

    that is the point here. If it was procured

    by any of these: fraud, misrepresentation,

    undue influence, illegality or incapacity,

    then it would be set aside. This is in

    respect of finality of the agreement. Mr

    Speaker, let us make some progress.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    Deputy
    Attorney-General, it appears that I saw
    you.
    Mrs Dapaah 4 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you.
    In addressing the issue raised on Section
    162 subsection (1) (a) and (b), it is my
    humble opinion that there is nothing
    problematic with it, considering that the
    effect of plea bargain is to result in a
    benefit for both parties, that is: the State
    and the accused person. So, where a
    charge is withdrawn, as the Hon Member
    has indicated, and it is just a charge, one
    of the terms of the plea bargain agreement
    would be that even though that charge is
    withdrawn, it is in consideration of, for
    instance, the accused person cooperating
    with the prosecution to aid the
    prosecution process. Therefore, it is not
    the case that upon withdrawal of that
    charge, there is nothing before the court
    that may be considered. Respectfully
    submitted.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021
    Mr Sosu 4 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank you very
    much. I would like to contribute to the
    debate that is ongoing with respect to the
    withdrawal of charges. I believe that
    because the plea bargaining itself begins
    from the time a person is arrested, it is
    entirely possible that a plea agreement
    may not be before a judge at the time that
    a charge had been withdrawn. That is the
    first scenario. Now, the second scenario
    could be that a trial would have begun or
    the person would have been arraigned
    before the court, and while the person is
    before the court, a plea agreement is
    entered into, which could lead to the
    withdrawal of a charge.
    Mr Speaker, my understanding of the
    provision is that, that term would be part
    of the agreement that would be put before
    the judge. In other words, it does not, in
    any way, fetter the fact that an agreement
    can lead to the withdrawal of a charge.
    This does not, in any way, fetter the
    discretion of the court to still supervise a
    plea agreement. For example, if a person
    is charged with stealing and a plea
    agreement leads to the withdrawal of a
    charge, my understanding is that the plea
    agreement that would be filed before the
    court would have as part of its terms that
    the parties based on these considerations
    agreed that the charge be withdrawn.
    Under those circumstances, when a
    matter is before a court and indication is
    given to the court that a charge must be
    withdrawn, it only leads to either a
    discharge of the person who has been
    arraigned before the court. So, I do not
    think that there is a problem with the plea
    bargaining leading to a withdrawal of the
    charge under those circumstances.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    There is no problem, so I think that the
    Question has already being put. So, let us
    move to --
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    was waiting for the Question to be put on
    the proposed that I made on item
    numbered (xvii). That is: Section 162J,
    insert a new subsection before subclause
    (1) as follows: “(#) A court may reject a plea agreement in accordance with law.”
    Mr Speaker, may I invite you to put a
    Question on that?
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    Very
    well.
    Question put and amendment agreed
    to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    Item
    numbered (xviii).
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    I beg to move, Section 162J
    subsection (1) paragraph (d) line 2, insert
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    the words “on the original charge” after “person”. Mr Speaker, this is consequential.

    Question put and amendment agreed

    to.

    Section 162J as amended ordered to

    stand part of the Bill.

    Section 162K - Withdrawal from a plea agreement
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, Section 162K, delete
    subclause (2).
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    Yes,
    available Leader, do you want to say
    something?
    Mr Nortsu-Kotoe 4 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank
    you very much. I think the Hon Chairman
    owes us an explanation as to why he is
    proposing a deletion of that section.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4 p.m.
    Are you
    part of the Committee? You are not. Mr
    Chairman, let us hear the explanation to
    it.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    the explanation is that that provision
    defeats the intention behind plea
    bargaining and the purpose of Section
    162I (6) because we have a purpose for
    bringing this, and if we bring the section
    in then it defeats the entire purpose - at least that was what the Committee made
    me believe, and I agreed with that.
    Therefore, that is the explanation as to
    why we are deleting it. It is unnecessary
    and leading to - It is a clawback clause and it will take away all that we are doing.
    Thank you.

    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 a.m.
    Now let
    me put the Question on the entire clause
    162K.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Section 162K as amended ordered to
    stand part of the Bill.
    Section 162L - Finality of judgment
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    beg to move, section 162L, delete and
    insert the following:
    Finality of judgment
    “162L. Where a Court convicts and sentences an accused person
    in accordance with a plea
    agreement, the conviction and the
    sentence shall be final and an
    appeal shall not lie against the
    judgment of the Court.
    Setting aside judgment
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    … Despite section 162L, a prosecutor or an accused person

    may apply to the Court to set aside

    the judgement on the ground that

    the plea agreement was entered

    into

    (a) as a result of

    (i) fraud;

    (ii) misrepresentation;

    (iii) undue influence;

    (iv) mistake;

    (v) duress;

    (vi) illegality; or

    (vii) incapacity

    on the part of a person other than

    the person making the application; or

    (b) is in breach of the rules of

    natural justice.

    (3) An application under

    subsection (2) shall be filed

    within ninety days from the

    date of the judgment.

    (4) The application shall be

    (a) by a motion supported

    by an affidavit, and

    (b) served on the

    Attorney-General and a person

    affected by the application.

    (5) A person served with an

    application under subsection

    (4) may file an affidavit in

    opposition to the motion.

    (6) The Court may

    (a)allow a person who has

    filed an affidavit to be

    cross-examined on the

    affidavit of that person,

    and

    (b)call a witness whose

    evidence is, in the opinion

    of the Court, relevant to

    the proceedings to testify

    before the Court.

    (7) Where the Court is

    satisfied that a plea

    agreement had been

    entered into as a result of

    fraud, misrepresentation,

    mistake, undue influence,

    illegality, incapacity,

    duress or in breach of the

    rules of natural justice, the

    Court

    (a)shall set aside the

    judgment, and

    (b)may make an order as

    to the re-trial or discharge

    of the accused person as

    the justice of the case

    demands.

    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    (8)A person aggrieved by a

    decision of the Court under this

    section may appeal against the

    decision.”

    Mr Speaker, this was agreed to by the

    Committee as a better rendition.

    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 a.m.
    Yes, Hon Chairman?
    Section 162N - Protection of plea agreement process
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, the clause, section 162N, subsection (2), delete paragraph (b).
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker, there is no amendment to section 162M. I plead with you to put the Question.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Section 162M as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:10 a.m.
    Mr Speaker I am inviting you to put the Question on sections162O and 162P together since there are no amendments to those clauses.
    Question put and Motion agreed to.
    Sections 162O and 162P ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:10 a.m.
    Now we would move to section162Q, item numbered 34 (xxii). Mr Chairman?
    Application of Sections 162 (a) to 162 (b).
    Mr Ahiafor 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I beg to move, the section 162Q, subsection (1) - delete.
    The reason for the proposal is not far- fetched. I would start by looking at section 162Q(3).
    “The State, subject to subsection (1) and (2) a person charged with an offence punishable by death shall not enter into a plea agreement to plead guilty to the offence punishable by death.”
    Mr Speaker, so by the provision, any offence that you are charged with which would be punishable by death, cannot be taken through a plea bargaining. This is in consonance with the practice in our courts. A person charged with an offence punishable by death, even where that person pleads guilty to the charge, the court would enter a plea of not guilty and take the person through the protracted trial. So, I am perfectly in agreement with the fact that if you are charged with an offence and the end result attracts death punishment, you cannot be entitled to plea bargaining.
    Mr Speaker, if we look at section
    162B(1), clearly, every plea bargaining is
    on the authority of the Attorney-General.
    So, he has the right to say that even
    though this offence is a misdemeanour, I
    would not subject it to plea bargaining
    based on the circumstances. Therefore,
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    why are we creating exception in 162Q

    (1)?

    Basically, there is no reason for

    creating the exception in section 162Q.

    Let us take the offence of murder is

    punishable by death, so section 162Q (3)

    says that, that offence cannot be subjected

    through a plea bargaining. So, why do we

    have it as an exception? Treason and high

    treason is a constitutional imperative and

    one is punishable by death and that is the

    very thing section 162Q (3) says.

    Mr Speaker, for all other offences, the

    plea bargaining could only be at the

    authority of the Hon Attorney-General

    and Minister for Justice. Where he says

    no, there cannot be a plea bargaining.

    Let us remember that the Hon

    Attorney-General and Minister for

    Justice, has the power of nolle prosequi

    under section 54 of the Criminal and

    Other Offences (Procedure) Act. So, once

    the plea bargaining is at the instance of

    the Hon Attorney-General and Minister

    for Justice for every offence, why do we

    create an exception?

    Mr Speaker, I maintain that the reason

    that has been given for creating the

    exception at the Second Reading, gives

    me much interest as, how a lecture in

    metaphysics would give to a mother of of

    a new born such that if we have an

    unscrupulous Hon Attorney-General and

    Minister for Justice, such a person may

    abuse it.

    In any case, would we take away the

    power of nolle prosequi from the Hon

    Attorney-General and Minister for

    Justice? We would not. So, why should

    we be afraid when the Hon Attorney-

    General and Minister for Justice is the

    sole person who should authorise a plea

    bargain agreement?

    Article 88 of the Constitution vests in

    the Hon Attorney-General and Minister

    for Justice, the power of prosecuting all

    civil and criminal cases. We are not afraid

    of the abuse of that particular power. Why

    should we be afraid when it comes to the

    authorisation of a plea bargain?

    Mr Speaker, it is in view of this that, I

    move, the House that we do not need to

    create an exception under this law and

    consequently, clause 162Q of the Bill be

    deleted.

    Mr Speaker, I am done.
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:20 p.m.
    Yes,
    Hon Member for Madina, Mr Sosu?
    Mr Sosu 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, the plea
    bargaining law is indeed a new
    introduction into our criminal procedure
    and my view is that, it must be very
    progressive and very radical as much as it
    could be.
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    Creating exceptions at this stage

    would actually amount to a clawback

    arrangement that would affect the

    ultimate reasons we are introducing a plea

    bargaining arrangement; one of which is

    to reduce congestions in our prisons as

    well as the load of cases that are before

    the courts, so that the courts and the State

    would focus attention on more serious

    offences. Secondly, to also deal with

    criminals who are not willing to take

    responsibility of their offences.

    Mr Speaker, we would realise that the

    overall intent of the plea bargaining

    arrangement is for a person who readily

    accepts his or her offences so it does not

    matter which offence exists under our

    criminal code whether it is murder, rape

    or hijacking. If the person who is

    involved in any of these offences is

    willing and ready to accept

    responsibilities for his or her offence, that

    person should be given an opportunity

    under our laws to plea bargain. So, to

    create an exception that would impede the

    work of the Hon Attorney-General and

    Minister for Justice, in other words, even

    though the 1992 Constitution in article 88

    gives the Hon Attorney-General and

    Minister for Justice the power to decide

    or represent the State in all these criminal

    prosecutions, and section 54 of the

    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure)

    code gives the Hon Attorney-General and

    Minister for Justice the power to enter

    nolli prosequi in respect of every other

    offence. We are saying that by these new

    prosecution, we want to create a bar

    through the Hon Attorney-General and

    Minister for Justice in respect of

    decisions that they must take.

    Mr Speaker, I rise to support the

    proposal made by the Hon Member for

    Akatsi South, Mr Ahiafor, and make it

    101 per cent that the exception must be

    taken out of this slot.
    Mr Hammond 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would
    want to oppose the suggestion made by
    the Hon Member for Akatsi South, Mr
    Ahiafor. Hon Member for Madina wants
    to support 101 per cent and I want to

    Well, he had101 per cent so why has he

    questioned mine?

    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member made a

    point about paragraphs (a) and (g). He

    said that the question of treason is already

    catered for anyway, it is a constitutional

    imperative and there is nothing we can do

    about it so we cannot arrange that by way

    of plea bargaining. It is accepted.

    We could delete it because it does not

    mean anything. We could leave it for the

    sake of emphasis or delete it. It talks

    about murder and we cannot deal with it

    by way of plea bargain. Again, we could

    leave it or delete it because it does not

    cause anything. It keeps on happening on

    the question of the authority of the Hon

    Attorney-General and Minister for Justice

    to enter into a nolle prosequi. Yes, he says

    that he has the authority under the 1992

    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    Constitution under the relevant laws to

    enter into a nolle prosequi but I am the

    same person in authority to handle

    criminal prosecutions and I have decided

    that for the purpose of the plea bargaining

    arrangement that I have brought to this

    Parliament, I would want to exclude these

    offences. I do not understand why we are

    splitting heads. The issue of nolle

    prosequi is entirely different from what

    we have looked at. He or she took the

    decision that he or she would not

    prosecute these crime of rape - nolle prosequi enters it and we see what

    happens? I would not do this. That is all

    we do. This is an offence, we have looked

    at it as an offence and we would charge

    the person with the offence but we are

    open to hear what that person would say.

    Would the person be open to plead

    guilty? What would the person say - and then we go through all the morose and

    what the law now —
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:20 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, would you rather support what
    he said?
    Mr Hammond 4:20 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I am
    opposed to what he said -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:20 p.m.
    I
    construed what you said to mean that you
    support what he said.
    Mr Hammond 4:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, 300
    times per cent no! - [Interruption] - listen! Do not create confusion so that Mr
    Speaker gets a bit - no. The Hon Attorney
    General and Minister for Justice said that
    nolle prosequi is in his bosom. He could
    always enter the plea and take that one,
    whatever - but the plea of nolle prosequi is different from what we are doing by
    way of this plea bargain business. They
    are entirely different sets of games. So,
    the Hon Attorney-General and Minister
    for Justice says he has come to this House
    with this law, if it is passed, but by way
    of it, the Hon Attorney-General and
    Minister for Justice says he would
    exclude from the application of the law
    we are about to pass those particular
    crimes, that would not support at all.
    Mr Speaker, what I supported were the
    paragraphs (a) and (g) and the reasons for
    them were explained pretty clear. There is
    a constitutional and legal issue that we
    cannot touch; treason.

    So, I agree with those ones such that

    we can take them out or leave them as

    they are. It does not make any difference

    but I am dealing with the rest; rape,

    defilement, genocide, robbery,

    kidnapping and so on.

    What the Hon Attorney-General and

    Minister for Justice is saying is that

    counsel for defendants do not come

    anywhere near on this matter by way of

    plea bargaining because they are beyond

    your reach. What is wrong with the Hon

    Attorney-General and Minister for Justice

    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    making these suggestions and you are

    saying that it is a new area and he or she

    is crawling back. That is all right and not

    this new frontier that we are discussing.

    Mr Speaker, the Hon Member says

    that as far as the law is concerned, these

    specific offences are a no go area; I do not

    want to discuss it by way of plea

    bargaining, I will prosecute. What is

    wrong with the suggestion?

    So, we should not get side-tracked by

    the suggestion because treason and

    murder are already catered for, there is no

    sensible reason the rest should be there.

    In terms of rape - people are very

    emotional about the matters that have

    been listed here and then the victim

    should hear the suggestion that there is a

    contemplation by the Hon Attorney-

    General and Minister for Justice on

    entering into a plea bargain with the

    accused person in respect of rape. Mr

    Speaker, one would immediately cringe.

    Mr Speaker, with regard to defilement,

    we know what it is and then we begin to

    think that there is a possibility that the

    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for

    Justice could enter into - particularly, last

    year when the Hon Attorney-General and

    Minister for Justice decided to enter into

    a plea bargain. That is a no go area.

    I know that Hon Members know what

    genocide is? We start entering into a plea

    bargain. Let us go through all of them;

    robbery and we know what it is. When

    armed robbers attack - and then

    kidnapping. We are going through all of

    them. Attempted murder is the same as

    murder; and then abduction, and I hear in

    terms of piracy, they are scattered all over

    the West African region - Gulf of Guinea.

    They attack your ship and hijack it.

    Mr Speaker, there is this suggestion

    that offences related to public election

    should be taken up and we should have a

    plea bargaining list. Why do we have -

    election offences? Election is the fulcrum

    of democratic experiment, the pivot of

    democratic dispensation. This whole

    democracy that brings us here is about

    elections; when one tempers with a ballot

    box by way of stealing, would you want

    someone to enter a plea bargain with you?

    Why do we have to engage in it in the first

    place? Do not engage in it and there

    would not be any plea bargain?

    To me, this seems to be the reasons the

    Hon Attorney-General and Minister for

    Justice has isolated them. We can clearly

    see that the rationale is so outrageous that

    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    it actually touches the social fibre of the

    entire society. As soon as one mentions

    treason, rape and defilement, people start

    cringing and the soul itself is very

    uncomfortable. It permeates the society

    as a whole and that is the reason the Hon

    Attorney-General and Minister for Justice

    isolated them as a no go area.

    Mr Speaker, I think we should leave

    the clause as it is, we can either take away

    the murder and treason because they

    really do not serve much purpose. Or we

    leave them there; otiose, because it does

    not spoil anything but Hon Attorney-

    General and Minister for Justice, would

    not change a single one of whatever is

    there. You agree with me? [I agree] do

    you not?

    I think that is her contribution but -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:30 p.m.
    Adansi
    Nkosuohene (Development Chief), well
    noted.
    Mr Hammond 4:30 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, thank
    you very much.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    am opposed to the amendment proposed
    by my Hon Colleague.
    I must admit that we spent a lot of time
    arguing on this very clause. For instance,
    one of the things that has been stated
    under 162Q, mention is made of treason
    and high treason. This is a constitutional
    issue. If we look at article 19 2(a) of the
    1992 Constitution, it reads:
    ‘in the case of an offence other than high treason or treason, the
    punishment for which is death or
    imprisonment for life be tried by a
    judge and jury and --'
    So, we cannot say that we are going to
    do plea bargain when it comes to treason.
    The Hon Member who moved the Motion
    to amend Q also cites, 162Q (3) which
    says that; ‘if the offence is punishable by death, one would not plead guilty to that'.
    Mr Speaker, this is known to criminal
    law practice in Ghana but even that my
    response would be that the person says
    that if it is by death, they would not plead
    guilty. However, the offences that have
    been listed under Q, it is not all the
    offences that would be punishable by
    death.
    So, there are some of them that sub-
    clause (3) do not cover as my Hon Friend
    is suggesting.
    Mr Speaker, among them, when the
    Committee met, we were privileged to
    have had some eminent sons and
    daughters of the land to actually educate
    us on this. We had a Supreme Court and
    Court of Appeal judges who were with us.
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    You would realised that these

    offences have been actually grouped into

    three; the violent offences and there are

    sexual offence and one related to public

    elections.

    My Hon Colleague the senior prefect

    had already argued on these things by

    taking them one after the other and I

    would associate myself with the

    reasoning that he had given without

    wasting time.

    Mr Speaker, among the things that the

    eminent sons and daughters had given us,

    for instance, if we are faced with a sexual

    offence of defilement or rape, before you

    realise, somebody goes in and settles

    these matters under plea bargaining and

    we realise that a lesser offence is given.

    For instance, in the case of defilement, it

    pleads guilty and is sentenced to seven

    years, another person commits the same

    offence and is sentenced to about 20 or 30

    years imprisonment.

    We are going to bring division within

    the society and before you are aware,

    another person is going to condemn the

    system by saying that we are creating a

    class system. Beside, that when you have

    the opportunity to talk to the victims of

    these offences, I am very sure that nobody

    would even think of a plea bargain in this.

    Mr Speaker, the last thing I would

    want to say is that the Hon Attorney-

    General and Minister for Justice, hitherto,

    had not practiced the plea bargain

    formally in our part of this jurisdiction

    and this is the first time this is being

    introduced and is coming from the Hon

    Attorney-General and Minister for Justice

    himself. He says that we should start

    these ones so far as criminal prosecutions

    are concerned and then give ourselves

    some time and we could actually -

    Yes, I agree that the law must stand the

    test of time but for now, to actually say

    that we must do plea bargaining in

    jacking, robbery, defilement, treason and

    high treason, rape, kidnapping, murder,

    attempted murder, abduction, piracy and

    offences relating to public elections.

    I would have given a thought about

    public elections but one offence with

    respect to public elections can collapse

    the whole nation. So, we must be serious

    with these offences as being very serious

    offences. How do we negotiate with

    somebody who is doing hijacking or on

    the high seas doing piracy?

    Mr Speaker, so, I actually, entreat my

    Hon Colleagues in the Chamber to agree

    with the proposal that has come from the

    law office and oppose this amendment.

    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I rise
    in full support of the position taken by the
    Hon Ranking Member in this matter. Yes,
    at the Committee level, we listened to
    professors, judges and other stakeholders
    and people of high legal mind, but this is
    the Chamber of Parliament, and our
    position would be the law.
    Mr Speaker what we are asking to do
    under this provision is in article 19, which
    speaks to fair trial, and that a person must
    have the right to have all the available
    legal structures under the Constitution
    and the law to - I agree that it is not absolute - be able to go through trial.
    Mr Speaker, Act 29 was enacted in the
    1960s. In that law, when a person
    commits some offences, he was told that
    he did not have the right to be admitted to
    bail. For many decades, those offences
    that fell within that exemption clause
    under section 96 stayed in our books and
    courts upon courts saw it. However, a
    couple of years ago, it took one brave man
    one day to say that it offended the spirit
    and letter of our Constitution, and that if
    a person committed an offence under the
    law in this country, the person had the
    right to be admitted to bail. Parliament
    could not enact the law to proscribe a
    person's right to be admitted to bail, and that provision has since been shot down.
    So as a House, going forward, we are
    guided by some of these principles and
    deep thinking in the law when we are
    framing our new laws.
    Mr Speaker, I heard the Hon Chairman
    speak about public elections and offences
    related to that. Elections regarding
    members of unit committees in our small
    villages is public elections; election of
    assembly members is public elections.
    We are saying that when an infraction
    such as wrongful nomination of persons - when a person commits it in my village in
    Dzemeni or Tongo, by the new plea
    bargaining Act, he is not entitled to any
    form of bargaining with the policemen at
    Duga. Mr Speaker, I think that these
    exemptions ought not to be allowed to
    stand in the law.
    Indeed, other arguments have been
    made regarding the power of the
    Attorney-General under article to 88, at
    any time enter a nolle prosequi. I would
    not go into those ones, but I am concerned
    about the fact that offences relating to
    public elections - Students' Representative Council (SRC) elections
    supervised by the Electoral Commission
    constitute public elections, and we are
    saying that when our young students
    engage - [Interruption] - It is the basis why we do not have to allow the
    exemptions. Mr Speaker, I am being
    heckled by the senior Hon Deputy
    Minister for Local Government,
    Decentralisation and Rural Development.
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    Hon
    Member, address the Chair.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:40 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    would want you to protect me
    [Laughter].
    Mr Speaker, the Hon Deputy Minister
    is one of the best brains we have on our
    local governance structures including
    elections. He knows that public elections
    can be so mundane matters so I pray that
    the position canvassed for by the Hon
    Ranking Member in the matter that the
    exemption clause, as presently advertised
    in the Bill, be struck down. It is well-
    founded in law.
    Mr Speaker, I am further fortified in
    my position in supporting the present
    amendment by the fact that as we speak,
    the Office of the Special Prosecutor
    (OSP) Act has copious provisions on plea
    bargaining. The OSP Act is set up to
    handle matters of corruption and
    corruption-related offences causing
    financial loss, but the offence of causing
    financial loss are not featured in the
    exemptions. Indeed they agreed that if a
    person commits any offence under our
    laws, he can have the right to enter into
    plea bargain. As for that right, we should
    not take it away from future offenders of
    the law.
    Thank you for the opportunity, Mr
    Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    It
    appears you are equating this Bill to the
    Plea Bargaining Bills. I think they are in
    different categories -
    Mr Dafeamekpor 4:40 p.m.
    It is the principle -
    Mr First Deputy Speaker 4:40 p.m.
    You are
    talking about the principle.
    Dr Ayine 4:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I turn in the
    main to support the Hon Chairman's position. I say so because there is ample
    justification in the Bill itself for the
    exceptions that have been placed under
    section 162Q.
    Mr Speaker, my only problem, which
    I think the Chairman himself hinted at, is
    in relation to election offences. I am not
    thoroughly convinced that all election
    offences cannot be subjected to plea
    bargaining. Mr Speaker, as the Hon
    Member for South Dayi has articulated,
    there are certain minor offences relating
    to public elections that can easily be the
    subject matter of plea bargaining. That
    can be resolved at the local level when the
    prosecutorial authority at the level
    decides that this is something that can be
    resolved without necessarily going
    through prosecution.
    Mr Speaker, I am at a loss as to why
    public election offences are within the
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    ambit of the exception. The other thing

    too is that, if we take section 42 of the

    public elections law, we cannot prosecute

    any public election offence without the

    consent of the Attorney-General. That is

    a provision that has been made by

    Parliament in order to guide the

    prosecution of those offences. In light of

    the fact that we have already provided for

    a requirement of the consent of the

    Attorney-General in those matters, I think

    that there is no need for us to put public

    election offences as one of the

    exceptions.

    Mr Speaker, the other thing too is that

    in making these exceptions, we need to

    think thoroughly about the consequences

    in practice.

    For instance, in the case of robbery, if

    there are 20 people and one of them

    decides to give information to the

    prosecution, what then happens if that

    person wants to cut a deal in order to give

    the information? Mr Speaker, we have to

    think through them thoroughly. However,

    in the main, I agree with Mr Chairman

    that there is ample justification

    constitutionally in respect of treason and

    high treason. Then also from research that

    is available, there are certain offences like

    defilement, the social and moral

    opprobrium associated with saying that

    someone who has defiled a minor should

    strike a deal and walk away. It is so high

    and we cannot risk having the Attorney-

    General walk into that kind of labyrinth.

    I think that we have ample justification

    for the rest of them. As far as election

    offences are concerned, I am not

    convinced.

    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:50 p.m.
    Mr
    Speaker, I think I am persuaded by the
    argument of the Hon Member for South
    Dayi which has been reiterated by my
    Colleague, Dr Dominic Ayine.
    I can agree to drop subclause (m), and
    then delete the (l) but I would urge my
    colleague the Ranking Member if he
    would consider withdrawing or
    restricting his amendment to delete
    subclause (l)? I draw his attention
    because some of them are constitutional
    issues. To say that the entire clause must
    be deleted, we would be entering into the
    arena of unconstitutionality, but I am
    persuaded that subclause (l) should be
    deleted.
    Thank you Mr Speaker.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Ranking Member, the Chairman now
    says that we are dropping subclause (m)
    Can you, looking at this, withdraw your
    amendment?
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021
    Mr Ahiafor 4:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, no. The
    reason is very simple.
    Mr Speaker, he cited an example that
    where 20 people were involved in
    robbery and one person wants to go
    through the plea bargain agreement and
    be used as a prosecution witness. In this
    particular case, the only option available
    is to enter a nolle prosequi, and if one
    enters a nolle prosequi, the person goes
    without any punishment. However, the
    plea bargaining would lead into an
    agreement such that one would suffer
    some punishment. There are penalties
    that one would suffer at the end of the day
    so, which one do we want?
    If you make it a bar that for an offence
    of robbery, there cannot be a plea bargain,
    it means that there may be occasions
    where the prosecution itself may be
    handicapped. Mr Speaker, we were told
    that for offences like piracy and
    hijacking, we need some of them to be
    used as the prosecution witness to be able
    to get others because of the nature of the
    offence. Hence, the plea
    bargaining would enable some of them,
    having regard to the benefit that they
    would get under the plea bargaining
    agreement, to make themselves available
    to be used by the prosecution. Yet we are
    creating a barrier. I believe we should be
    bold enough to make laws that would
    stand the test of time, and not to make
    laws in anticipation that we would do
    amendments to remove these barriers that
    we are putting in place.
    I strongly move that clause 162Q (1)
    should be deleted. It has already been
    taken care of. The constitutional ones are
    taken care of by clause 162Q (3). Any
    offence punishable by death cannot be a
    subject matter of plea bargaining. That
    has taken care of the treason and high
    treason and murder in those
    circumstances so we do not need clause
    162Q (1).
    Mr Sosu 4:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I would want to
    add on because the issue of victims was
    raised.
    Mr Speaker, when you look at the
    content of the Plea Bargaining Bill, one
    category of people who stand to benefit
    most are victims. For example, I was
    involved in a defilement case where two
    men defiled a 13 year old girl. I was a
    lawyer for the victim in Cape Coast, and
    I ensured that those two men went to
    prison for 20 years. As the trial was
    ongoing, these men wanted to see
    whether there was a possibility of any
    settlement because the 13 year old girl, at
    the time, was pregnant. We said no
    because there is no space within the law
    to allow for such negotiation. At the end
    of the day, they said they were willing to
    pay medicals, but we said no. They were
    jailed and the State had no way of taking
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    care of the 13 year old girl with her

    pregnancy,

    Mr Speaker, the law says that there is

    even room for accused persons who

    accept their wrong to be made to pay

    compensation. There is even reparation

    that can bring closure to people who have

    been offended so creating this exception

    immediately takes the opportunity of the

    State to meet victims half-way is all gone.

    The whole idea of how people may feel

    about sexual offences - in any event, Mr Speaker, all practitioners know that when

    it comes to sexual offences, priests,

    chiefs, assembly members and sometimes

    even police commanders would appeal

    for settlement. Mostly, they settle outside

    the remit of the law, and victims do not

    get anything. Mr Speaker, this is a golden

    opportunity that we should not lose. Let

    us take out the exception. After all, the

    Attorney-General has the power to say

    that on any given occasion, he is not

    entering into plea bargaining.

    Mr Speaker, the second reason is that,

    our laws are not classified, and because of

    that, one cannot put the laws in degrees.

    There may be stealing, but the stealing

    may be in degrees. There may be murder;

    murder can be in degrees. All the offences

    that we are creating exceptions to can be

    in degrees. For some of them, the degree

    would be such that the Attorney-General

    would be willing not to prosecute the

    person but get the person an opportunity

    but the current proposal, which is creating

    this exception, would take away all these

    opportunities.

    Mr Speaker, I pray that my Hon

    Colleagues would come together and vote

    in favour of this amendment. After all, the

    Attorney-General, at any point in time,

    can say that on this occasion, he would

    not enter a plea bargain and no one would

    arrest him. If the Attorney-General says

    that on this sexual offence, he would not

    enter nolle prosequi, nobody will arrest

    him.

    Mr Speaker, let us take cognisance of

    the fact that there are times where

    complainants would insist that the matter

    goes to court, but the Attorney-General

    may come to a conclusion that based on

    the matter that is before him, he does not

    even have the necessary evidence. It

    could be sexual offences or any of those

    offences, but the complainant may be

    insisting on going to court. Under those

    circumstances, if an accused person is

    willing to admit, and then plea bargain, I

    think they should be given the

    opportunity.

    Mr Speaker, I urge you to put the

    Question, and let us vote on this matter.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 4:50 p.m.
    Hon
    Chairman, can we move on? I want to put
    the Question.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 4:50 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, I
    think there are two positions that have
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    been made. The first is that one clause

    under section 162Q be removed. The

    other proposal, which I have opposed, is

    that the entire section 162Q be deleted.

    Mr Speaker, my proposal at this time is to

    request that you adjourn the House, and

    then, we could actually put our heads

    together -
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Hon
    Members, let us allow the Chairman to
    speak —
    rose
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    No, I
    have not called you. Let me listen to the
    Chairman, I will come back to you.
    Mr Anyimadu-Antwi 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    we would want to make a good law for
    the nation. It is not a matter of any person
    winning or losing so I would want to
    request that the Committee does further
    consultation on this clause, and then
    tomorrow, we can report to the plenary. I
    pray accordingly.
    Mr Peter Nortsu-Kotoe 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker,
    having listened to both sides, it is
    important that they go back and do
    winnowing before a decision is taken on
    it. Let us also remind ourselves that the
    Hon Member who moved for the deletion
    did not move for the deletion of the entire
    clause; it is only subsection 1. I think we
    have done so much. We are tired, and we
    can call it a day - [Interruption] What I
    am saying is that Mr Speaker should not
    put the question. They should go back and
    do winnowing and come back.
    Ms Alhassan 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, it is
    getting interesting, but tiring. We have
    been at this since morning, and it is 5 p.m.
    - [Interruption] Hon Members are exhausted, and I suggest we adjourn the
    House till tomorrow.
    Several Hon Members: No!
    Ms Alhassan 5 p.m.
    We are exhausted!
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Well,
    Hon Members, it is good that you want to
    work so, when we come tomorrow, we
    will continue. Personally, I would have
    wished we finish the entire thing -
    Hon Members, hold on. The point is,
    we have already made a referral with
    respect to item numbered 34(xiii). We
    have not heard from the Attorney-
    General whether we are cleared on that
    particular issue, and now there is the
    amendment by the Hon Ranking
    Member. I believe it would be proper to
    adjourn, so that the Committee would
    look at these two areas together, and
    come to a firm decision tomorrow.
    Hon Members, this is not a question of
    whether somebody has won or lost. We
    are looking for a very good law. I was
    carried away by Hon Sosu's argument, but let us hold on. If you have a good
    point, you have a good point so let us
    adjourn the House till tomorrow.
    Criminal and Other Offences (Procedure) (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    Hon Members on that note, the time is

    Hon Members, we have had a lot. In

    the interim, we have come to the end of

    the Consideration Stage, and — Hon Members, as I said earlier, we would

    bring the curtains down for the day. We

    have done a lot. I would have wished that

    we finish this Bill today, but then, we still

    have certain clearances to make from the

    Attorney-General's Department. You are all aware that we made certain referrals

    that they have to do some consideration

    so, we would put this one together with

    the previous one we deferred.
    Mr Dafeamekpor 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, we
    have cooperated with Leadership, and we
    should be commended for that. I think
    that there is a Motion, and if the Question
    on it has been deferred to tomorrow, we
    should be told that because of so and so
    reasons, we are deferring putting the
    Question to tomorrow. In the
    circumstances, we want to adjourn the
    House, but, if in the course of the back-
    and-forth, Hon Members are urging that
    Question be put on the Motion, and then
    an Hon Leader rises that we should
    adjourn, we are taken by surprise. I am
    just seeking guidance on the matter. We
    are working with consensus, and I think
    that we should carry this consensus
    building into tomorrow. That is all we
    want.
    Mr Hammond 5 p.m.
    Mr Speaker, as the
    Hon Member rightly said, we should
    commend them. If we had carried on like
    this for the last weeks, we would have
    done quite a lot of work. The point the
    Chairman and Leadership are making is
    that - it is 5.00 p.m. As Hon Alhassan
    said, we have been here since morning.
    Mr Speaker, you have been sitting for
    all this while. I think the point being made
    is that the debate has not quite concluded
    for the Question to be put. Let us take it
    to tomorrow, and then we would
    conclude it. There is no doubt that our
    Hon Colleagues have done a yeoman's
    job. I will buy all of them paano - Wopɛ
    diɛn? Mentɔ diɛn na ɛmma mo? Mopɛ
    diɛn? Apem? Edien? Atsomɔ? They like
    atsomɔ. I will buy them atsomɔ. Na wakyɛ
    ama ɔmo - [Laughter] - Let us take the
    spirit to tomorrow, and we would be
    happy to commend ourselves.
    Mr Second Deputy Speaker 5 p.m.
    Very
    well. So, tomorrow, we will continue
    from where we stopped.
    ADJOURNMENT 5 p.m.