Mr Speaker, if we remove,“wilfully”, it presupposes that anydestruction that is occasioned, whetherthrough the fault of the person or not, theblame would be put at his or her doorstep.But in this particular case, we are sayingthat, if the person intentionally — Wilfullyalso means, intentionally. If the personintentionally destroys or causes theproperty to be destroyed, in this particularcase, he or she can reasonably be fixedwith a guilty knowledge. But I perfectly agree with the earlierrendition. This is because, the use of thewords, “wilfully and falsely” wereirrelevant. This is because, if a person
uses a title which he or she knows he/shedoes not have the mandate or authorityto use — the person already knows thathe or she does not have the authority touse the title. Mr Speaker, in this particular case, weare talking about destruction of a propertywhich may be done either intentionally orunintentionally. Mr Speaker, with respect to thedestruction of property, the person canonly be liable if same is occasioned eitherby him or her or through a differentperson, but with the intention of causingsame to be destroyed. Mr Speaker, I would like to propose thatthe current rendition of the provisionshould stay. It would mean somethingdifferent altogether, the moment we takeaway the “wilfully”.