Debates of 13 November 2017

MR FIRST DEPUTY SPEAKER

PRAYERS

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND THE OFFICIAL REPORT

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, we would commence with the correction of the Votes and Proceedings of Friday, 10th November, 2017. Page 1 -- 8

Speaker
Mr Ato Panford

rose

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Member for Shama?

Speaker
Mr Panford

Mr Speaker, I was in the House on Friday, but I have been marked absent.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

The Clerks- at-the-Table would take note and correct it accordingly. Page 9 -- 32. Hon Majority Leader, shall we vary the order of Business since I cannot see the good professor here?

Speaker
Mr Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, Prof. George Yaw Gyan-Baffour is around. He has given an indication that he is picking a document to bring to the Chamber. But since we cannot wait for him, I guess we can vary the order of Business and go to item numbered 9. Mr Speaker, when he surfaces in the Chamber, we may suspend the Consi- deration Stage and allow him to make his Statement, then we would come back to continue.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well, Hon available Leader?

Speaker
Mr Mahama Ayariga

That is so, Mr Speaker. I believe we can take item numbered 9. I was reaching out for my own Bill.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, very well, the Office of the Special Prosecutor Bill, 2017 at the Consideration Stage.

BILLS -- CONSIDERATION STAGE

[Resumption of consideration from 10/11/17].

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, clause 44, proposed amendment in the name of the Hon Minority Leader, Hon Haruna Iddrisu? [Pause] -- From the understanding I had the last time, when there is an asterisk to a proposed amendment, it means that at winnowing, they had agreed that it would be dropped. So, I would like to hear you apply to withdraw, so that I would grant you leave to do so.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, pursuant to our understanding at the winnowing stage that an asterisk indicates a decision to withdraw a proposed amendment, I apply to withdraw the amendment. 10. 55 a. m.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Leave granted, item numbered 9 (i) withdrawn. Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Item numbered 9 (ii) is amendment in the name of Hon Dominic Ayine.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga (on behalf of Dr Dominic Ayine)

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 44, subclause (2), line 3, delete “or restrained” and also in line 4, delete “or restrained”

Speaker
Mr Speaker, it would now read

“Where an investigation has commenced against a person for corruption or a corruption related offence and the property relating to that offence is frozen, the Court shall order the release of the frozen property if—

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, do you have any objection to the proposed amendment?

Speaker
Mr Ben Abdallah Banda

Mr Speaker, we have no objection.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well, I will put the Question. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Item numbered 9 (iii) is in the joint names of Hon Haruna Iddrisu and Hon Dr Ayine. But it has an asterisk. So, available Leader —

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, I apply to withdraw that amendment.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Leave granted to withdraw the amendment. Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House. Clause 44 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. C l a u s e 4 5 - - R e v i e w i n g o f f r e e z i n g o r d e r .

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 45, subclause (1), line 1, after “Court” insert “on notice” and in line 2, delete “on notice”.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, the rendition now reads

“The Special Prosecutor may apply to the Court on notice for a review of the order within fourteen days after the issue of the freezing order.” Mr Speaker, we are repositioning the phrase, ‘on notice' after ‘Court' in order to make the rendition more apt.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well, Hon Members, the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the House. Yes, Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I think this combines the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee and that proposed by Hon Dominic Akuritinga Ayine. But just to do a cleaning up, the clause should now read: “The Special Prosecutor may apply to the Court on notice, for a review of the freezing order.” That would combine the proposal from Dr Ayine with that being proposed by the Hon Chairman of the Committee. So, we would not repeat ‘the freezing order' again but within fourteen days after the issue of that order.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Item numbered 9 (v) has been over reached by the amendment we have just carried. So, we would go to item numbered 9 (vi), which is also in the name of the Hon Dr Ayine.

Speaker
Mr Mahama Ayariga (on behalf of Dr Dominic Akuritinga Ayine)

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 45, Add the following new subclause: “(2) The Special Prosecutor shall, in an application for review, state in the affidavit in support of the application the special circumstances meriting the grant of the application for review.”

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon available Leader are you done?

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Yes Mr Speaker. The Hon Majority Leader has drawn my attention to an earlier amendment that was done last week which would consequentially not necessitate this amendment. I hope that he would refresh our memories.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, you would remember that last Friday, in considering clause 41, Hon Ayine attempted to introduce this same subclause on the rationalisation of the affidavit. It was defeated. So, I thought that consequentially, it should not be moved. 11. 05 a. m.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, I do not know whether you have any other justification, but I think this is implicit. If you make an application, you must justify it.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, I recall that last week, I opposed Hon Dr Ayine's proposal for the amendment. Given that he is not here, and I stand in his stead to move the amendment, I would still like the records to show that I moved it and the House took a decision.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, to be fair to Hon Ayariga, last Friday, he vehemently opposed it but when it came to voting, he voted for what he had opposed.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

I recall that.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, it was a voice vote. How did he know that my voice was among those who voted against it? [Laughter.] Question put and amendment negatived. Clause 45 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, may I plead that we suspend further consideration and allow Prof Gyan- Baffour, the Hon Minister for Planning to make his Statement, and after that we would come back.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Available Leader?

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, that is in order.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. Consideration Stage is suspended. [Pause.] -- Hon Members, there is a Statement by the Hon Member for Wenchi and Minister for Planning. I would now invite him to make the Statement.

STATEMENTS

Speaker
Minister for Planning (Prof. George Y. Gyan-Baffour)(MP)

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the President of the Republic, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo- Addo, I present to the House the Coordinated Programme of Economic and Social Development Policies, 2017-2024, under the theme' “An Agenda for Jobs: Creating Prosperity and Equal Opportunity for All” Mr. Speaker, article 36, clause 1 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana enjoins the State to: “... take all necessary action to ensure that the national economy is managed in such a manner as to maximize the rate of economic development and to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every person in Ghana and to provide adequate means of livelihood and suitable employment and public assistance to the needy.” Mr Speaker, to ensure the imple- mentation of the foregoing, among others, article 36, clause 5 requires that, and with you permission, I quote: “... within two years after assuming office, the President shall present to Parliament a co-ordinated programme of economic and social development policies, including agricultural and industrial pro- grammes at all levels and in all the regions of Ghana.” In presenting this document to the House, the President is, therefore, responding to this constitutional requirement and providing a vision and strategy for the development of the country during his tenure as a President. Mr Speaker, the document that I am presenting to the House on behalf of the President today reflects as much as possible: The development aspirations of Ghanaians, as captured in the New Patriotic Party Manifesto entitled, “Change: An Agenda for Jobs: Creating Prosperity and Equal Opportunity for All”; the outline of the President's vision for the country during his tenure; the offer of a comprehensive diagnosis of our socio-economic challenges; presentation of new approaches to addressing them, and the specific interventions to be introduced to overcome them; and selected flagship programmes and projects, which will serve as the broad expression of Government policies.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, this Coordinated Programme

“An Agenda for Jobs: Creating Prosperity and Equal Opportunity for All”, forms the basis for the preparation of the detailed medium-term national develop- ment policy framework and will be the basis for all annual national budgets from 2018 to 2021. It will also be the reference document that informs the entire country as well as the international community of

Speaker
Mr Speaker, this Coordinated Programme

Speaker
Mr Speaker, the vision underlying the Coordinated Programme is to create

“An optimistic, self-confident and prosperous nation, through the creative exploitation of our human and natural resources and operating within a democratic, open and fair society in which mutual trust and economic opportunities exist for all”. This vision has been informed by a combination of the President's own experiences and convictions, and the aspirations of Ghanaians as articulated during the 2016 election campaign. It is intended to energize the creative potential of Ghanaians, through the provision of a new sense of leadership; new approach to the management of the economy; renewed confidence in the governance of the country; and above all, renewed hope in our common future. Mr Speaker, this vision and its consequential policies and programmes, place people at the centre of development, and lays the foundation for a safe Ghana that works, and gives each and every one of us the opportunity to improve our lives, irrespective of our socio-economic background, gender, status, tribe or geographical location. Mr Speaker, the President has pledged to offer a new approach of doing things, to drive the agenda for achieving this vision, including removing the bottlenecks that stifle the growth of the private sector, and create one of the best environments for private sector growth and development in Africa. Pillars of the Coordinated Programme Mr Speaker, drawn from this vision are policies and programmes to be implemented by Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs), as well asMetropolitan,Municipal, and District Assemblies (MMDAs). These policies and programmes are organised under five areas, namely: i. Economic Development ii. Social Development iii. Environment, Infrastructure and Human Settlements iv. Governance, Corruption and Social Accountability; and v. Ghana's Role in International Affairs The effective implementation of interventions outlined in this coordinated programme is aimed at achieving these broad goals: a. creating opportunities for all Ghanaians; b. safeguarding the natural environment and ensure a resilient built environment; c. maintaining a stable, united and safe society; and d. building a prosperous society. Overall, the Coordinated Programme aims at the minimum, at doubling the per capita GDP by 2024, driven essentially by revitalising the economy; transforming agriculture and industry; strengthening social protection and inclusion; revamping economic and social infrastructure; and reforming public service delivery institutions. Mr Speaker, in conclusion, the President has reiterated time and time again how he wants to bring about transformation in the Ghanaian economy as quickly as possible. It is in this regard that for the first time in the 4th Republic, the President is presenting the Coordinated Programme within ten (10) months of assumption of office, instead of the two years stipulated in the Constitution, which has been the convention. This is expected to give a clear sense of direction to the country on where we want to go, and serve as the basis for social mobilisation, as well as guidance for Government budgets. He is therefore urging all Ghanaians to support the programme to establish a Ghana where hard work, creativity and enterprise pay; a country where, no matter your origin, you will be rewarded on merit and not on any other consideration; and a country where every young person can hope, aspire and reach his or her fullest potential. Mr Speaker, Parliament discusses the set of proposed interventions in the document, it is his desire and expectation that both sides of the House will find common ground on the issues, and generate consensus on ways of implementing, monitoring and evaluating the interventions set forth in the document, for the benefit of all Ghanaians. M r S p e a k e r , a t t h i s j u n c t u r e , I w i s h t o c o n v e y t o t h e a u g u s t H o u s e , t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s w a r m e s t a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e w o r k y o u d o . H e l o o k s f o r w a r d t o y o u r f r u i t f u l d e l i b e r a t i o n s o n t h i s C o o r d i n a t e d

Speaker
Mr Speaker, the vision underlying the Coordinated Programme is to create

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

The record should reflect that the Hon Minister for Planning has laid the Coordinated Programme of Economic and Social Development Policies 2017 to 2024. Hon Majority Leader, is there room to comment on the Statement now?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, that is, indeed, the convention of the House, but I do not know whether we would want to do so now or tomorrow.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well, I would be guided by the Hon Leaders of the House. Hon available Leader on the Minority side, what is your pleasure?

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, this is clearly a very important constitutional assign- ment that has been performed. The Report has just been laid and we have not had access to the details. So, commentary now would not be well informed. Mr Speaker, I would want to propose that copies should be made available to Hon Members so that we could comment on it tomorrow, and by Wednesday, when the Budget Statement is read, some foundation would have been laid for the discussions that would attend the Budget Statement itself. Mr Speaker, I would support the proposal by the Hon Majority Leader that we delay commentary on it till tomorrow.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I would want to acknowledge the fact that this document is required appropriately to be submitted to Parliament, so that in debating the Budget Statement and Economic Policy of Government, we would situate those discussions within the ambit of this coordinated programme. Mr Speaker, unfortunately, over the years, it has been difficult for governments to submit the programme to Parliament in good time. Often times, when it comes in a second year, we would have dealt with, maybe, three Budget Statements and Economic Policy of that Government. That is why it is important to acknowledge what this Government has done. Mr Speaker, I would agree that we should have copies of the document, in order to read and appreciate the issues, and if there are any issues that we could raise to further enhance what the objects of the Government are, we could do so collectively. Mr Speaker, I would want to plead with the Hon Minister for Planning to furnish Hon Members with copies in order to position us to proffer comments on the Statement tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. Hon Minister for Planning, can we expect that sufficient copies for all Hon Members would be available by close of day today?

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well, I would leave that to the Business Committee and the Leadership to consider and advise the House at our next Leadership meeting. Hon Minister for Planning, what is important for us now is for Hon Members to get sufficient copies. I would direct that each Hon Member of Parliament is supplied with a copy to enable us prepare before the debate resumes. Yes, Hon available Leader on the Minority Side?

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, if it would also be possible for us to get electronic versions of the copy, we would still be able to manage with them.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well.

Speaker
Prof. Gyan-Baffour

Mr Speaker, I would do that in Portable Document Format (PDF).

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

All right. Hon Members, we shall resume the Consideration Stage of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Bill, 2017.

BILLS -- CONSIDERATION

STAGE

[Continuation of debate from column 2825 ]

Speaker
Chairman of the Committee (Mr Ben Abdallah Banda)

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 47, subclause (1), delete and insert the following: “Where the Court has confirmed the freezing order, the Special Prosecutor may apply to the Court to serve a person a notice to make a disclosure of the funds and other assets of that person in the prescribed form.” Mr Speaker, the reason for this proposed amendment is that the Special Prosecutor need not necessarily charge the suspect before applying to the court for the freezing order. Once the Special Prosecutor has come to the determination that there is the need for a confirmation order to be made, whether the person has been charged or not, the Special Prosecutor could proceed to court for a confirmation order. Mr Speaker, the second point is that the issue of the order on the person to make a disclosure is to facilitate the investigation process, so that the disclosure of whatever properties the suspect has in his possession, which are liable to be confiscated at the end of the day, would to be confiscated. That is the rationale or the essence of this proposed amendment.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, funda- mentally, I do not think there is a problem if there is suspicion. The Special Prosecutor has put in an application for a freezing order, and in the process, wants some more information about the suspect, and takes steps to access such information. It is even less offensive if the process involves a court, and it is the court that would have to order that further information be furnished by the suspect. Mr Speaker, I want to suggest for consideration, a further amendment of the proposed amendment. Instead of “..the Special Prosecutor may apply to the court to serve a person a notice to make a disclosure” — Mr Speaker, service of notice to make a disclosure does not compel the person to make the disclosure. If I am served a notice to make a disclosure, I will take the notice and keep it. There is no order directing me to make the disclosure.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, so I would have preferred that it reads

“apply to the court to further direct the person to make a disclosure of the funds and other assets of that person in a prescribed form.” So, instead of just serving notice, we would actually ask the court to further direct the person to disclose certain things. So, it is my proposal that we further amend. So that it would now read: “Where the Court has confirmed the freezing order, the Special Prosecutor may apply to the Court to further direct the person to make a disclosure of the funds and other assets of that person in a prescribed form.”

Speaker
Mr Alexander Kodwo Kom Abban

Mr Speaker, I believe that instead of all those words, we could just substitute “serve” with “order”, and come to the same thing. The new rendition would read: “Where the Court has confirmed the freezing order, the Special Prosecutor may apply to the Court to order the person a notice to make a disclosure of the funds and other assets of that person in the prescribed form.” So that we would do away with a lot of words.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, let me be guided; when the court is not certain that there are other assets, should we order a person? This is because the court order must be complied with, but unless you are certain that there are truly other assets, should the court make an order? I thought this provision is to give the person the option that if there are any other assets that you want the court to be aware of this is your option — you are served notice — you can put it in this prescribed form. It is like the criminal procedure where one is charged with an offence and you have committed other offences, you may inform the court that, for instance, before I was arrested for careless driving, I hit another vehicle. You have disclosed that so the court would take that into consideration. I wonder how the court would make an order, unless it is certain. Let me be guided. 11. 35 a. m.

Speaker
Mr Abban

Mr Speaker, with all due respect, I thought the application to the court would disclose all these facts, so that on the basis of the court coming to a determination that there are other things, then that order could be made.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, the rendition of the proposed amendment does not make it mandatory. It says, “…the Special Prosecutor may…” So, if the Special Prosecutor has come to a determination or is convinced that there are other assets that have to be disclosed, it is there and then that the Special Prosecutor may proceed to court for the necessary order to be made. So, the inclusion of “order”, with due respect, would not make any difference in my humble opinion.

Speaker
Mr Yaw Boaben Asamoa

Mr Speaker, in the event where we have accepted the proposed amendment as it stands — [Pause.]

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

There is another amendment, which I believe is important, where you used, “in the prescribed form”. I looked at the back of the Bill, but did not see any “prescribed form”. So, what specific “prescribed form” did you refer to? Otherwise, “a” should be appropriate.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, that would be provided for in the Regulation that would be brought before Parliament very soon.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

So, would it read “the prescribed form” or “a prescribed form?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, it would be “the prescribed from”.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. So, I believe it makes it a bit more flexible if we replace word “the” with “a”.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, Hon Ayariga's rendition may be taken on board, except that the Special Prosecutor would go to court for a disclosure order. That is the essence of the application. Once that disclosure order has been granted, the effect is that the person would be compelled to make the necessary disclosure in accordance with the order of the court. Be that as it may, we may take Hon Ayariga's proposed amendment. So, if he could read it again to the hearing of all of us, so that we could reconsider it.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, it should read: “Where the court has confirmed the freezing order, the Special Prosecutor may apply to the court to further direct that person to make a disclosure of the funds and other assets of that person in a prescribed form”.

Speaker
Mr Asamoa

Mr Speaker, to make it tidier, we wish we could amend “funds and other assets”, and insert “other property of that person.” The reason being that “property” is very broadly defined in the Act, and it would cover, virtually, everything, including legal title to other assets.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, so the proposed rendition would read

‘where the Board has confirmed the freezing order, the Special Prosecutor may apply to the court to further direct that person on notice to make a disclosure of the other properties of that person in a prescribed form'. We amend “funds and other assets” to “other properties”. Thank you.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move subclause 2, line 1, delete “shall” and insert “may”. That is the Committee's proposed amendment. Mr Speaker, but I would like to seek a direction from you to withdraw this amendment. My reason is predicated upon the order already made by the court in clause 47 (1). Once the court has already directed, the suspect -- in this particular case, under clause 47 (2) -- has no other option than to make the disclosure. Mr Speaker, so if we use “may”, it presupposes that the suspect has a discretion to either obey the order of the Court or not. To the extent that the order comes from the court, it is mandatory. So, I would respectfully withdraw the proposed amendment, and leave the original rendition to stand. It will still be “shall”.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman of the Committee, but the original rendition uses “notice”. We have now moved out from “notice” to “order”. So, if you drop that, then I suppose the whole subclause (2) should be removed.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, that is so. I believe that once it is a court's directive, the court will usually give a timeline within which the directive should be obeyed. So, subclause (2), in its present rendition, becomes unnecessary because we would no more deal with a notice, but

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Speaker
Mr Abban

Mr Speaker, I acknowledge what the Hon Member said, but I believe that the court must also be guided by the time frame as contained in the Bill. So, the “28 days” should stay, so that the court could work within a few days; but the maximum date would be 28 days.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, my proposed rendition would be

“upon receipt of the directive under subsection (1), the person shall lodge two signed copies of the disclosure with the Special Prosecutor within 28 days” -- that should be enough.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, we would put the individual in a position where he or she would have to act in conflict with the court's directive, and still be able to claim a defence under this Act. So, if the court orders that he should disclose within two weeks, one can go home and refuse to disclose within two weeks. When they go to court, he would say that the Act gives him up to 28 days. So, I do not see the reason why we want to -- unless we would now amend subclause (2) to give the court a time frame within which the disclosure should be made. Mr Speaker, so subclause (2) would not speak to the person on whom the notice has been served, but speak to the court. The Court shall request that the disclosure should be provided within 28 days. This is because the court has taken a decision that it should be disclosed, and would normally give a time frame. So, to give the person “28 days”, it is as if we are disregarding the court's discretion. If we still want to retain subclause (2), then we should speak to the court and not to the person providing the notice.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, particularly, those of us who are in the practice, we would notice that anytime there is a requirement to do something within a certain period, the matter would not be before the judge. It is always during the preliminaries -- file within that time, and do this and that. Anytime it goes before a judge, the judge is left with the discretion to look at the circumstances and the situation to determine when something ought to be done. So, if we are asking the court to make the order, then I suggest that we leave it that the court should make the appropriate orders -- When we talked about “notice”, then this subclause would be useful; but now that we have moved from “notice” to “orders”, I think the court should be allowed to make the order as the justice of the situation demands but we are still -- The Hon Majority Leader is shaking his head, and I would want to hear from him.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I think in dealing with these “freezing orders”, its duration and review, we have always insisted on timelines. So, I believe that we should situate the 28-day provision within that context. I, however, do not understand why we should extend it to 28 days because all along, we have used 14 days. I think 14 days should be sufficient for the person to make full disclosure. Having said so, I think it should rather be situated within the first amendment that the Hon Chairman proffered: “Where the court has confirmed the freezing order, the Special Prosecutor may apply to the court to further direct that person to make a disclosure within fourteen days of other assets of that person in a prescribed form” Mr Speaker, that is where it should belong.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. So, is it a proposed amendment of what we have done? I do not know whether that is a Second Consideration -- [Laughter.] -- Or do we take a decision on that?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I know that Rt Hon Speakers have always been very magnanimous when it comes to the Consideration Stage, and they have given us the opportunity to relax the rules and go back to any decisions that we have taken. So, I would want to apply that we further amend clause 47 (1) to read: “Where the court has confirmed the freezing order, the Special Prosecutor may apply to the Court to further direct that person to make a disclosure within fourteen days of other assets of that person in a prescribed form”

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. Hon Members, there is a proposal to further amend clause 47(1). Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, in that case, what do you do to subclause (2)?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, subclause (2) must be deleted.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

We can amend subclause (2) to read: “On the receipt of the order or directive” instead of “notice”. “On the receipt of the order or directive, the person shall lodge two signed copies of the disclosure with the Special …” “Within twenty-eight days” does not apply.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, so, it would end at “Special Prosecutor”.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, kindly do the proper rendition.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, we would delete the rest.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. Hon Chairman, can you read the final rendition, so that I would put the Question?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, the final rendition reads: “On receipt of the directive under subsection (1), the person shall lodge two signed copies of the disclosure with the Special Prosecutor”. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Item numbered 9 (ix).

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Now, it is no longer voluntary confession. The person has been ordered by the court to provide the evidence. That is exactly why it should be admissible because the current principle is that admissibility is governed by relevance. Any evidence that is relevant is admissible. So, I agree with you that the current one should be withdrawn but --

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, I think the Hon Chairman must have been initially moved by the principle that one should not incriminate oneself. Under the circumstances, if we compel somebody, pursuant to a court order, to provide evidence that is self-incriminatory, and then we turn around and use that evidence as a basis to charge that person, we would offend the rule against self- incrimination. That is, the right not to incriminate one's self. So, if the law is that somebody must obey a court order to provide information that is incriminatory of that person, Mr Speaker, I dare say that in relation to that particular information, we should not allow the Special Prosecutor to be able to proffer charges. Mr Speaker, we should remember that the Special Prosecutor already has some evidence, wants to freeze those assets, and then wants some further information. So, I assume that we already have information based on which to proffer charges. Why do we now compel somebody, on his or her own, that they must disclose any other information that they have? The person discloses the information, and then we turn around to use that information as a basis to charge the person -- I think it really offends our rule not to be compelled to incriminate one's self. So, I would like to hear from the Hon Chairman of the Committee on this matter. His initial decision was a noble one, and I would urge him to continue along that path and not abandon the amendment. Mr Speaker, I do not think we would want to encourage that.

Speaker
Mr Abban

Mr Speaker, I do not think that the disclosure of the assets incriminates the person, but the fact of the crime incriminates the person. The disclosure of these assets is the proceeds of the crime. So, if we draw the distinction very well, using this as evidence, it is only to tell the court the effect of the crime; but this does not incriminate the person. So, I do not see why we cannot use this in evidence.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, the original principle was not to get a court order. If you read carefully, all those come from voluntarily providing further information if a person wants to. So, once we have changed it to “order”, at the application stage, a person could say that he is sorry, and that he cannot provide further information because he would incriminate himself. So, once we have crossed that line, then it does not appear here anymore. Once the court listens to him and still makes the order, then his remedy is to maybe, make an appeal. He cannot come back to say that once the information has been available, it cannot be used against him. Hon Chairman, what do you think?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Chairman, I agree with you perfectly because the issue of admissibility or otherwise of evidence is determined at the time that the evidence is tendered in court. The court would have to decide whether the evidence is admissible or not. To the extent that the application was made, arguments were advanced and the court came to the determination that one must make the disclosure, I do not think the disclosure that the person made, pursuant to the court order, cannot be used against him. That is the essence underpinning the disclosure order, which aids the Special Prosecutor to make a comprehensive and thorough investi- gations in order to enable the court come to a fair and justifiable determination of the matter. Mr Speaker, so, I think we should delete it. As and when the information or evidence is proffered, it would be determined whether it is relevant or not and admissible or otherwise.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. Actually, I believe that, at that point, it would have become part of the court record, and nobody could stop a person from tendering a court process or record as evidence in another matter. Hon Members, if there are further arguments, I would want to hear them.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, if the intention is to gather further evidence of the use of the proceeds, then we have not expressed that clearly in our earlier amendments to clause 47 (1) and (2). This is because clause 47 (1) and (2), as we rendered it to read finally, is very broad, that a person should disclose any other assets or property. So, “any other property” would not be limited to even property that is reasonably suspected to be acquired with proceeds of the suspected crime. It could be any other asset which, in my opinion, again, may go against the brain of article 18 of our Constitution. Mr Speaker, I dare say that we may be faced with some legal objections and litigations anytime that these orders are being made by a court. People would fall on article 18, and object the intrusiveness of such orders, especially, when they couple it with the potential that it may be incriminatory. Mr Speaker, I agree with the argument, that once the court gets to a point where it orders disclosure, then it might be very difficult for a person to say that it is not evidence that could be used against him in court.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, let us read article 18(2). A person's right to property is subjected to laws that are reasonably necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety, economic well-being of the country, for the protection of health or morals, and for the prevention of disorder or crime. So that may not come in handy once it could be shown that it was for the prevention of crime and so on and so forth. So I think that it may still be appropriate to withdraw it. We have crossed that line already. Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, further to what you have said, this Office is not to be equated to any ordinary committee or commission of enquiry. This is a special office charged with investigating and initiating prosecution and the materials that they gather would certainly be used in the prosecution. So, if anybody should say that it should not be used against the person, then it would be incongruous, and it would sit against the object of the Office in the first place.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, having said that, if we look at clause 47 (4), it provides that

“The disclosure of funds and other assets …” -- in this case, the disclosure of information relating to other property -- “… shall contain the following information: (a) assets received or expected to be received by the person charged; (b) assets held or disposed of by the person charged including assets held by any other person or in the name of any other person on behalf of the person charged; and (c) the funds and the source of the funds ....” It is the source of the property that we are dealing with. Mr Speaker, so, would the person say that if there is really a compelling evidence that the source of that property is predicated on the corruption, it cannot be used against him in court? Mr Speaker, I think we are home and dry on the Hon Chairman withdrawing the amendment, and then we could make progress.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Yes, available Hon Leader?

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, we could reframe it this way, but measured against article 18, each time the Special Prosecutor on notice applies for a directive by the court for an order that a person should make disclosure of other property that the person owns -- Mr Speaker, my argument is that it would come against article 18 each time, and it would be challenged on the grounds that this legislation is overly broad, to the extent that it says that every other assets of the person should be declared. Mr Speaker, especially when the person makes a case that in the context of criminal prosecution that he might incriminate himself. It is not like a person has contested elections to become an Hon Member of Parliament, and he or she is asked to disclose his assets. Even with that, there are guarantees that the assets would not be revealed ordinarily, and it would be kept somewhere. It is not in this context. This is a context where the Special Prosecutor investigates a person for a crime which relates to assets and property, and the Special Prosecutor has the discretion to apply to get an order which says that the person should disclose every other asset of his. In the context, that might end up incriminating the person. Mr Speaker, so I think we could reframe it because article 18 is not absolute, but it is subject to laws aimed at preventing crime, et cetera. Nevertheless, each time there is an application, I believe that the counsel, in such cases would challenge it and go to the Supreme Court and back, and that would further --

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Good business for you. Yes, Hon Member?

Speaker
Mr Ebenezer K. Kum

Mr Speaker, I believe that in this particular exercise that we are engaged in, we are trying to connect a particular property to the commission of a crime. So, it is not as if when a declaration is made and it has nothing to do with a corrupt practice, anybody would touch it. So, we should distinguish between property that has been acquired as a result of a commission of a crime. In any event, the date of acquisition of that property even becomes germane in the determination of whether or not that property should be attached or not. I believe that is the concept or context in which we have to consider the declaration. Mr Speaker, thank you very much.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, are you withdrawing your proposed amendment?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, rightly so.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, the proposed amendment is withdrawn.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, at this stage I would -- [Interruption] -- Hon Chairman, we are hearing the private conversation of the Hon Attorney- General and Minister for Justice because you have left the microphone on. Yes, Hon Member for Adentan?

Speaker
Mr Asamoa

Mr Speaker, with your permission, if the consequential amendment could be made to “funds and other assets”, that wherever they appear in the rest of the provision under clause 47 in subclauses (4), and (5).

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. I so order. Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 47 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Clause 48 -- Hon Members, there is no amendment advertised on clause 48; I would therefore put the Question on clause 48.

Speaker
Mr Kum

rose

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. An Hon Member is on his feet. Yes, Hon Member?

Speaker
Mr Kum

Mr Speaker, I am sorry. Having regard to the amendment we have made relating to other assets, there is the need to also amend clause 48 (c) as we have done previously.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

I have ordered that wherever it appears in the Bill, the draftsperson should do the appropriate amendment. So, I would put the Question again.

Speaker
Mr Banda

rose

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you would give me the permission to go back to clause 47, subclause (5), in view of the amendment that has been effected in the preceding provisions in clause 47. Mr Speaker, I believe it has become necessary to amend clause 47, subclause (5), to read: “(5) Where a person has been given a directive to make a disclosure fails to make the disclosure of the funds and other assets within the period specified…”. It should not be: “Where a person charged and given notice to make a disclosure fails to make the disclosure of the funds and other assets within the period specified…”.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon acting Leader?

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, if a person requested to disclose information but does not disclose it, he would be punished. Mr Speaker, how do we aggravate the punishment by making a property liable to confiscation when at that stage we have not proven whether the property is the result of the proceeds of crime? Here it is just a failure to disclose. So, for failing to disclose, we have not proven that the property is the proceeds of crime committed that we would want to make it liable to confiscation. So, in my opinion, we might make the failure to disclose the information a punishable criminal offence under subclause (5), paragraph (a), but in subclause (5), paragraph (b), it is too severe that for just not disclosing, the property becomes liable to confiscation. Mr Speaker, I plead that the Hon Chairman should consider that we further amend to delete subclause (5), paragraph (b).

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

In any case, the person is being trialled for a substantive offence. Why do we want to punish him for failing to provide information before we come to the end of the trial?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, subclause (5) emanates from the order of the court. The court made the order and the person refused, and that, strictly speaking, is contempt. So, we are criminalising it here. But with respect to paragraph (b), to a large extent, I might agree with him, except to say that the other property might be frozen. It cannot be confiscated because confiscation only comes after the trial and the accused person has been convicted. So, that other property might be frozen, but not confiscated.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. So, the amendment is that --

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

rose

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Let me hear you, Hon Member.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, as we were debating clause 47, we considered the potential that if a person has an issue with the decision of a court that he should disclose information, is it not important that we take note of this contingency and further amend subclause (5) to read: “Where a person has been given a directive to make a disclosure fails to make the disclosure without justifiable cause of the funds and other assets within the period specified.” If one files and appeals within the fourteen days, why should he make a disclosure? If one had filed an appeal, it would have been a justifiable cause. If I am directed to disclose information and I challenge the order of the court, that I should disclose the information by filing an appeal against the decision of the Court as currently rendered -- If I do not still disclose within the fourteen days, I would still have committed the offence and yet, I have a justifiable cause because I have filed an appeal against the decision of the court. Therefore, once I have filed an appeal against the decision of the court, ordinarily, the matter should be stayed until the Appeal Court takes a decision. I should apply for a stay of execution. Assuming that my application for stay is also denied, I should have reasonable time to apply for and appeal against the decision not to grant me the stay. So, that is a justifiable cause. Mr Speaker, in my opinion, in all fairness to the suspect, we must provide some room for the person who would want to challenge the decision of the court. As it is now, we have not given any room for people to challenge the decision of the court.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, an order of the court could always be challenged; from a District Court, Circuit Court, High Court, Appeal Court, up to the Supreme Court. So, as soon as the order is made, if one is dissatisfied with the order, he or she immediately appeals against the order and seeks to stay the execution of the order of the court below. Mr Speaker, I believe this is a very well established and pedestrian rule that we all know. The person appeals because the mere fact that he appeals does not mean that the order has been stayed. So, he would apply to have the order stayed. I believe that is the procedure. So, I believe his rendition, in my view, with the greatest respect, should not fit here. I believe, to a large extent, the current rendition is all right. If a person wants to appeal, he could always appeal as soon as the order is made.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, there is an amendment proposed that the other property which has not been disclosed is liable to confiscation. Is that one dropped? Very well. I hope the draftpersons would take note and the Hansard Department would. Do I have to put the Question on that?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, we have not deleted it, but we have amended it. “The other property which has not been disclosed shall be frozen”. On the other hand, we could delete it and propose a new rendition: “The other property which has not been disclosed shall be frozen pending the determination of the matter.”

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. It is “…shall be frozen.” Yes, Hon Member for Asante Akim North?

Speaker
Mr Kwame A. Appiah-Kubi

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity. I would want to support the inclusion of subclause 5 (b) because the liability for confiscation is not a finality for confiscation. It is only indicating that such property ought to be investigated as well and upon determination, confiscation would come. Therefore, we would have to retain that clause, so that any such property undisclosed becomes a subject of investigation as well and a determination so made in respect of that property.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, when it is confiscated, it does not belong to the person again. But we said it is frozen, pending the final determination.

Speaker
Mr Appiah-Kubi

Mr Speaker, what I mean is that, as it is now, the liability of that property to confiscation indicates that it is to be subject to investigation for further determination, and therefore as it is -- But Mr Speaker, if we say that when it is not disclosed and it is found that it should have been disclosed, and therefore, it is frozen, it means that a final decision is made before the investigation.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

When the person is charged, then we have reason to believe that there is another property. That property, even if it is there, it has to be determined that it is a property coming out of crime before we determine that it be frozen. At the end of the trial, if the court comes to a conclusion that it is indeed proceeds of crime, that is when the court may order that it is confiscated. Now, it is frozen, so it cannot be dealt with in it.

Speaker
Mr Appiah-Kubi

Mr Speaker, In any other way.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Yes, I think that is a better -- Yes, Hon Member for Bawku Central?

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, this is the first time that we are legislating automatic freezing. The practice in this Bill is that the Special Prosecutor could decide to direct that an asset be frozen, and then go to court for confirmation of a freezing order. Why do we want to change it in relation to undisclosed asset? If we find out that the person has not disclosed some other available assets, we could go back to clause 44 and again freeze, and then go back to court again and get the court order confirming the freezing of the assets. I think it should go back to the same procedure, where the Special Prosecutor can direct that he or she should freeze the assets, and within the same period that he is permitted to go to court for a freezing order, he or she could go to court again for that.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, when you read the proposed amendment in clause 47, subclause (1), the order for disclosure of the other assets is pursuant to an application by the Special Prosecutor to court. Strictly speaking, it is not an order made by the Special Prosecutor himself. If the Special Prosecutor realises that there are other assets which have not been disclosed, he or she would not freeze them. Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment says that the Special Prosecutor must go to court to apply for an order directed at the suspect for that disclosure to be made. So, if that other assets or property exists, and the suspect intentionally conceals it, that property ought to be frozen. That is all that we are saying.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, I think we have two stages: the first one where we give the power to the Special Prosecutor is at the investigative stage. At that stage, the person has been charged. Subsequently, we have reason to believe that some property may be tinkered. So, we would call on him to disclose it. If he does not, we would have gone past the investigative stage, so we would come before the court now. So, I think “…shall be frozen” is the power to be given to the court to freeze, the property pending the final determination of the matter. Let me hear from Hon Yieleh Chireh.

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon Chairman insists on keeping subclause (5) of clause 47. We agreed that if we delete clause 47(5)(a), then there would be basis for the rest of the subclause; because, confis- cation could not be a measure after that. Mr Speaker, all the things the Hon Chairman has tried to reformulate for liability to freeze did not add up. Once the person is subject to investigation, we could always get the court order to freeze the assets. Mr Speaker, if he would remember the debate we had during the winnowing session, it was that, subclause (5) should be deleted. If he deletes it, we could make progress. But if he insists on reframing it, we would have a problem. All the other provisions take care of how to freeze when we are not -- but as for criminalisation of non-disclosure, it should not be. We could go to court for somebody who is misinforming or not telling the truth about something on a different charge, but not on this one. So, I would beg him to withdraw this whole amendment and let us delete the entire subclause (5).

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, he says that you agreed at the winnowing session to withdraw the entire subclause (5).

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, that was not the agreement.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, there is no advertised amendment to clause 49 --

Speaker
Mr Asamoa

Mr Speaker, save that the consequential order to change funds and other assets to other property will apply.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

I have directed that anywhere it appears, if the context so admits, the amendment should be made. Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 50 -- Application for confiscated and pecuniary penalty order.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 50, sectional note, before “Order” insert “or Pecuniary Penalty” So the new rendition reads: “Confiscation or Pecuniary Penalty Order”

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

There is “Confiscation Order” as the sub-title so which one are you applying to amend?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, in between “Confiscation” and “Order”, we are inserting “or Pecuniary Penalty” so that the new rendition reads: “Confiscation or Pecuniary Penalty Order” Mr Speaker, the reason is that, a property can be confiscated but where the person has benefited financially from a criminal activity, a pecuniary penalty order is made for the recovery of that money from the person. That explains why we seek to insert not only “Confiscation” but “Pecuniary Penalty Order”. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 50, subclause (1), line 1, delete “on trial” and insert “convicted” So, the new rendition reads: “Where a person is convicted for corruption or a corruption related offence, the Special Prosecutor may apply to the Court for the following orders:” Mr Speaker, the reason is that a confiscation or a pecuniary penalty order can only be made after the person has been convicted, not when he is on trial. That explains why we are deleting “on trial” and inserting “convicted”.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

This is a straightforward one. So, I will put the Question. Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 50 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 51 -- Notice of application

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 51, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 1, after “publish” insert “on the website of the Office and” So the new rendition reads: “Where the Special Prosecutor applies for a confiscation order: (a) the Court shall direct the Special Prosecutor to publish on the website of the Office or in the Gazette or a daily newspaper of national cir- culation, a notice of the appli- cation before the determination of the application;”

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, in fact, it is the same clause and what I wanted him to do was to add that he was -- so that we would deal with it as a subclause because at the end he said there would be a date to be determined by the Court so, if he can read the whole of subclause (1). Mr Speaker, he still has an amendment in his name -- first he said insert “on the website of the Office and” and then, there is also this one at the same place. [Interruption.] All right, I have seen the point. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 51, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “shall” and insert “may” and in line 2, at end, add “on a date determined by the Court.” So, the new rendition reads: “The Court may direct the Special Prosecutor to publish in the gazette or a daily newspaper of national circulation a notice of the application before the determination of the application on a date determined by the Court.” Let me take it again. Clause 51(2)(b) shall read: “The Special Prosecutor may --

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Is it clause 51(2)(b) or clause 51(1) (b)?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Clause 51(2)(b). I am sorry, Mr Speaker. Let me take it again. Clause 51, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “shall” and insert “may” and in line 2, at end, add “on a date determined by the Court” So, the new rendition reads: “the respondent may appear and adduce evidence at the hearing of the application on a date determined by the Court.”

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, now, it makes sense.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader wants to know why we are deleting ‘shall'. We are deleting ‘shall' because when the application is served on the respondent, it is not mandatory upon him to appear. He may choose not

Speaker
Mr Banda

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, he is saying that we should not make it ‘shall'; if we make it “shall” and he refuses — but if we make it “may”, we might have given him the latitude not to go. It should be mandatory. If the person refuses to go he knows the consequences. So, there should not be any change in that.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, we need to look at the context. If you look at clause 51 (2); “Where the Special Prosecutor applies for a pecuniary penalty order (a) the Special Prosecutor shall give the respondent not less than eight days written notice of the application; and (b) the respondent shall appear and adduce evidence at the hearing of the application”. If we do not make it compulsory, that the respondent should come, there is no indication that the notice of the date of the hearing would also be served on the respondent. It is only the notice of the application that should be served on the respondent. So, it is perfectly possible that the respondent may not know the date. And there is no compulsion that he must be brought before court. What would happen then is that, the Special Prosecutor could go to court on the day that the respondent would not know that on this day, the Special Prosecutor is in court and the matter would be heard and a decision taken without the respondent being heard. So, I think we should maintain “shall” so that the court would always have the benefit of hearing the respondent.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I am now convinced that we should make it ‘shall' so that if he does not appear, then —

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

So, the first part of the application is withdrawn. Hon Chairman, kindly hear the new rendition.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read: “Where the Special Prosecutor applies for a pecuniary penalty order — (b)The respondent shall appear and adduce evidence at the hearing of the application on the date determined by the Court.”

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Member for Asante Akim North?

Speaker
Mr Appiah-Kubi

Mr Speaker, I seem to disagree with the use of ‘shall' instead of ‘may' because the service of the application is totally different from the appearance itself. When from the records of the court, there is no proof of service of notice, the court would not continue to hear the matter because the matter would not be right for hearing. But upon service of the application, we should not compel the respondent to come to court. This is because the respondent has the right to refuse to come to court. And again, he also has the right to refuse to oppose the application. Therefore, it is a discretion that the respondent ought to exercise, but not the respondent being compelled to come to Court because of the use of the word, ‘shall'. In any case, if the use of the word ‘shall' is maintained and the respondent fails to come to court, it would be an indictment on him, for which the court may punish. So, Mr Speaker, I want to crave your indulgence to sustain the word ‘may' rather than ‘shall' because the use of ‘shall' goes beyond the right of the respondent.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, I am still hearing your arguments. Yes, Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I believe you have heard sufficient arguments about this. The Hon Chairman, representing the Committee, is insisting that we go back to use the word, ‘shall'. I believe for now, the Hon Member for Asante Akim North is a lone ranger in this and I believe you can put the Question.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Well, unfortunately, he has not moved any amendment for the amendment. So, if you feel strongly about it, then you may move a amendment that the rendition be amended to ‘may'. Otherwise, it is withdrawn and I will proceed. Let us proceed. We would now take the amendment that is the addition of “a date determined by the court.” Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 51 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 52 -- Amendment of application.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 52, subclause (1), paragraph (b), line 1, delete “necessary” and insert “relevant” Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read; “The Court hearing an application for a confiscation or a pecuniary penalty order, may before the determination of the application and on the application of the Special Prosecutor, amend application to include other property or benefit if the Court is satisfied that — (b) The relevant evidence became available only after the application was made. Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 52 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill Clause 54 -- Procedure against property where a person dies or absconds

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, subclause (1), paragraphs (a) and (b), delete and insert the following:

Speaker
Mr Banda

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, I am not comfortable with the combination in subclause (b) in particular. Clause 54 (1) (b) says: “(b) is convicted of corruption or corruption”related offences but dies or absconds” Is it after the conviction that he dies? I thought that could be separated from “absconds”. This is because we would have combined the two in one sentence, but if we looked at it, we would have to be clear. We must either add “before he dies or absconds”, but if we said “but dies”, what is the meaning of that? I would prefer that we put in “before he dies” and for the other one, “absconds”.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, I do not see the difference though. The person has been convicted, and before sentence, he disappears and cannot be found. In the other case, before sentence, he collapses and dies. I do not see the difference in effect though.

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, if we say “but dies”, are we saying he was convicted before he died. I would add “before he dies or absconds”.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

That is what the sentence says. Hon Chairman, the proposal is that you break them into two, such that you have “if convicted of corruption or corruption related offences before he or she dies” and then “but absconds” -- I would listen to you Hon Member.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, subclause (b) seeks to cure two situations. First of all, where after conviction, the person dies and secondly, where after conviction, the person absconds. So, we seek to take care of those two situations. I do not know whether it is the rendition that is the problem or the two put together that is the problem. I believe putting the two together would solve the problem. It would make a lot of sense to capture the two situations where he dies or absconds after conviction. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, would you want to say something?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, it is just a minor thing. All along, we have dealt with “corruption or a corruption related offence”. It is only in this subclause that we have pluralised it to “corruption related offences”. So, we should be consistent in using the singular. It should read: “(a) is on trial for corruption or a corruption related offence”

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman of the Committee, what do you say to that?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I also believe that we do not even need the word “but” in those two instances. “(a) is on trial for corruption or a corruption related offence, absconds” (c) is convicted of corruption or a corruption related offence” -- Mr Speaker, sorry, the word “but” is needed, but we should singularise “corruption related offences”.

Speaker
Mr Banda

I believe the singular includes the plural. So, we may take the Hon Majority Leader's earlier rendition.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. So, the new rendition would read: “(a) is on trial for corruption or a corruption”related offence (b) is convicted of corruption or a corruption related offence but dies or absconds.” Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, subclause (2), line 1, delete “of paragraph (b)” The new rendition would read: “For purposes of subsection (1), a person is considered to have absconded if reasonable attempts

Speaker
Mr Banda

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, subclause (3), paragraph (b), line 1, after “published” insert “on the website of the Office and” and in line 3, delete “three months” and insert “ninety days”

Speaker
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would be

“(3) Where the Special Prosecutor applies for a confiscation order against tainted property under this section, the Court shall, before hearing the application for the confiscation order, (b) direct notice of the application to be published on the website of the Office and in the Gazette or a daily newspaper of national circulation containing the particulars in three publica- tions within ninety days”.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee moved for the adoption of the proposed amendment. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I beg to quote paragraph (b) which provides: “direct notice of the application to be published in the Gazette or a daily newspaper…” Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee has included “on the website of the Office” and he says it should be in three publications. Mr Speaker, do they want to say that it should be gazetted three times? Certainly, no! It would not appear three times - I believe he wants to refer to the newspaper. So, he should tidy up that aspect to look better than what he has done. Mr Speaker, in any event, why would they limit it to the newspaper and not maybe, electronic publication like television or radio? How many people access the website? People rather access the television.

Speaker
Mr Chireh

rose

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Yieleh Chireh?

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, I would also want to crave the indulgence of the Hon Chairman of the Committee to change the word, “and” that he added at the end of his proposal. This is because the original rendition was; “…in the Gazette or a daily newspaper...” Mr Speaker, if we look at the original rendition, it said that it should be published in the Gazette or daily newspaper of national circulation. If the Hon Chairman of the Committee would want to add “on the website of the Office and”, the word, “and” should not be used; it should be, “or”. Mr Speaker, I would want to know if the Hon Chairman of the Committee would agree to further amend it.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman of the Committee, would you want the website and the Gazette to be alternative or you would want both?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, we would want both.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

The “website and the Gazette” or the website and the daily newspaper”? I believe the Gazette should be constant.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Yieleh Chireh, the Hon Chairman of the Committee wants the publication to be on the website and in the Gazette and then they may add the newspaper.

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, you did not get the argument I made. The original rendition said “…the Gazette or the daily newspaper of national circulation”, It did not say, “…the Gazette and the daily newspaper of national circulation”. If the Hon Chairman of the Committee has introduced a third form of publication, then the word “or” should be used for the three modes of publication -- so that would be either in a website or in a Gazette or in a daily newspaper. But if the Hon Chairman of the Committee says “and the Gazette”, the Gazette and the website are not the same. They are different and in different locations. Mr Speaker, what I said was that, the Hon Chairman of the Committee's amendment should be, “on the website of the Office ‘or' in the Gazette and not “on the website of the Office and in the Gazette”.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, the Hon Chairman of the Committee said he wants it to be published on the website and also in the Gazette.

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, the Gazette and the website cannot be in the same location. The Gazette is an official publication which is separate from the website of the Office of the Special Prosecutor. Unless the Hon Chairman of the Committee originally wanted to say “in the Gazette and a daily newspaper” -- but if it is not so, logically, he should say, “on the website or in the Gazette or the daily newspaper” so that they would be separate.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Chairman of the Committee should lead us in what the Committee would want us to appreciate. Mr Speaker, I agree with Hon Yieleh Chireh, that if we conjunct the “website and Gazette” it means that the two should necessarily go together; It should be the website and the Gazette, and if that cannot be done, then it would be the newspaper publication. Mr Speaker, so, either or then includes the two against one. Is that what they want or they would want the three at the same time? If they would want the three at the same time, then the conjunct should be

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Majority Leader drew our attention to the increasing importance of radio and television stations as mechanism for serving notice. So, Mr Speaker, I would want the Hon Chairman of the Committee to consider that also as one of the options

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, while we talk about publication, we should also consider the financial implication. Mr Speaker, I have been told that it is expensive to have a notice published in any of the daily newspapers. So, I have been directed that the notice must be published on the website which is not expensive and very easy and convenient -- [Interruption] -- So, we seek to insert “in the website of the Office and in the Gazette”, but with respect to a daily newspaper, that should be all.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman are you done? An Hon Member is on his feet and I would want to give him — Yes, Hon Member for Akwapim South?

Speaker
Mr Osei O. B. Amoah

Mr Speaker, I believe the Hon Chairman of the Committee should make it clear, that the implication should not be that when we gazette it and do not put it on the website, then it means we have not completed the process. The gazetting should be different from placing it on the website. If we put them together, even though the official notice would have been given by a publication in the Gazette, because it is not on the website for whatever reason, it is not complete. We should distinguish between the two. As for the publication, that is official publication, and that should bind the convicted person, as supported by law. On the website, it is information to the whole world. So, we would create a problem for the Office of the Special Prosecutor if we put them together. We can make it mandatory to put it on the website. Are we saying that publication on the website is official notice to the whole world? It cannot be. If for any reason, the website breaks down for a month, does it mean that the person or the public have not been notified? Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman of the Committee is asking for my proposed rendition. I believe gazetting should be mandatory — First, gazetting, and “in addition or” — as a follow-up on the website.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

So, what is being published? Is it the Gazette that would be published in the newspaper?

Speaker
Mr O. B. Amoah

Mr Speaker, that is not the impression here.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

The easiest thing probably is that, the Gazette is the official notification, then the Gazette may be published on the website or in the newspaper.

Speaker
Mr O. B. Amoah

In which case, even if it is not published, it is has been gazetted. So, that is official notice.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

That is right. Hon Chairman of the Committee, what do you think?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I would take the concern on board, we may use the word “or”. So that — [Interruption.]

Speaker
Mr O. B. Amoah

Mr Speaker, if he uses “or”, then it means gazetting is not mandatory. But the gazetting should be mandatory, and the rest would follow.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

You may use the rendition, “published in the Gazette and in addition, may be published on the website or a newspaper”. So, let us do it this way. Hon Chairman of the Committee, reformulate it and let us put the Question on it.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, then the new rendition for subclause (3) would read: “direct notice of the application to be published in the Gazette, and in addition, on the website of the Office or a daily newspaper of national circulation.”

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, I would want the Hon Chairman of the Committee to be clear about what we want. First of all, we want it to be in the Gazette. That is mandatory. If we want it at the same time on the website, it is “and a website”, and also “and the daily newspaper”. This is because, if we want to use “and, and” it is fine. It means that we do not expect only one to be done. But if we say, “in the Gazette” or “any of” these — That is why we said that we should chose “either or”, which means that once he does any of them, it is all right. But if we would want all to be done, which I believe should be the case — This is because, if we miss the opportunity to get it in the Gazette, we can get it on the website if we visit it, and then also in the daily newspaper. Mr Speaker, the original rendition said; “in the Gazette or in the daily newspapers”. I do not know why they said so. But if we want both to be done, then we should want all of the three to be done. So, the word should be, “and”.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, the draftspersons have advised, that we can achieve that by saying, “shall be published in the Gazette, and in the newspaper or on the website”. So, at least, the Gazette is mandatory, and in addition, we may have other ones. Hon Chairman of the Committee, so the “and” comes first with the Gazette and the “or” comes after —

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, with respect, we are not reinventing the wheel here. We have always done this — [Pause.] Mr Speaker, so, I guess we can safely leave this in the hands of the draftspersons.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Very well. Hon Members, we know what we want and so the draftspersons are directed to put it in a form that is consistent with legislations previously enacted. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 54, subclause (4), delete Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 54 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 55 — Confiscation order against property

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, let me give the reason clause 54 is being provided for under clause 58.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, we have already taken the votes. Let us deal with clause 55.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 55, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 4, delete “on trial or”

Speaker
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read

“The Court hearing an application for confiscation of tainted property may infer from the record of proceedings of the trial that the property was derived, obtained or realised as a result of corruption or a corruption related offence if (a) the property was acquired by the person before, during or within a reasonable time after the period of the commission of the corruption or corrup- tion-related offence of which the person is convicted; or”.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, the conference around the third line on the Majority side should cease. Hon Member for Mampong and Hon Deputy Ministers, you are disturbing the House. Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 55 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 56 -- Effect of confiscation order.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56, subclause (1), line 2, delete “absolutely” and after “Republic” insert “to the extent of the interest” and further in line 5, at end, add “without notice”

Speaker
Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads

“Where the Court makes a confiscation order against property, the property vests in the Republic to the extent of the interest by virtue of the order and the property is free from a right, interest or encumbrance of any person except the right, interest or encumbrance which is held by a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration without notice.” Mr Speaker, we are making this proposed amendment because where a purchaser in good faith acquires a tainted property without notice, that purchaser is being protected by the law because he may have purchased the property without knowing that the property is tainted. We know that in our legal --

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman of the Committee, it is enough. That is sufficient justification. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56, subclause (2), paragraph (a), lines 1 and 2, delete “except with the leave of the Court and in accordance with the directions of the Court”.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads

“Where the Court makes a confiscation order against property and a notice of appeal has been filed, the property shall not be disposed of or otherwise dealt with, before the determination of the appeal; and”. Mr Speaker, we are seeking to maintain the status quo, so that where the person makes the appeal, the property must not be confiscated unless and until the appeal is determined.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman of the Committee, you do not mean so. The property has been confiscated but we do not want it to be disposed of pending the determination of the appeal against the court.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Rightly so, Mr Speaker. It is the disposal of the property that we are seeking to prevent. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 56, subclause (2), paragraph (b), line 3, delete “or otherwise dealt with” and in line 4, delete “the direction of the Special Prosecutor” and insert “this Act”.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads

“if the confiscation order is not discharged on determination of the appeal, the property shall be disposed of and the proceeds applied in accordance with this Act.” Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 56 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 57 -- Void transaction.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

rose

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, with respect, the Hon Chairman of the Committee just led us through clause 56 (2) (a) and he called for the deletion of the phrase, “except in the leave of the court and in accordance with the directions of the ourt” but with a disposal -- Mr Speaker, there was a qualifier that it could be disposed of with the leave of the court and in accordance with the direction of the court. But he said we should do away with those ones, and that property shall not be disposed of or otherwise dealt with before the determination of the appeal. We may have situations where items may be perishable and where that happens, they could be disposed of in a manner prescribed by the court, just as at the level of seizure, provision is made for the disposal of the asset. So, why are we saying that when we have moved beyond seizure and freezing, at the level of confiscation it cannot be done? I am worried.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

I believe we may need to make an additional provision for perishable items.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I believe that is the reason we ought not to have deleted those words that the Chairman asked us to delete.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon available Minority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, I doubt if it were a perishable item, it would survive up to the point of conviction and confiscation. If at the point of freezing the asset for purposes of the investigation and the trial, there are perishables and you deal with it at that stage, they would not be there when it comes to conviction and confiscation. So, there may not be any need to make provision at this stage for perishable goods because we would have dealt with it at the initial stages.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, the perishability of an item -- unfortunately, my Hon Colleague relates it to fresh tomatoes and onions. That is what he thinks. Goods that are manufactured may have expiry dates and if maybe, they may last for two or three years; they certainly would expire. That is what I am referring to. I thought in that regard, we could come under that phraseology: “…except with the leave of the court and in accordance with the directions of the court”. Mr Speaker, but we are in the hands of the Hon Chairman, and I believe he is convinced and persuaded by this.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I think we could make a provision for the perishable goods.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

I also agree that we should make it specific. This is because if we leave it as “goods” or general property, it may be taken advantage of to dispose of property while appeal is pending. If it is landed property, before one is aware, it is sold off. So, we should make a provision for perishable items separately. Hon Chairman, you should put your heads together and draft something to be inserted as, probably; paragraph (c); for perishable items.

Speaker
Mr Asamoa

Mr Speaker, there is a provision under clause 36 (2) and (3) for seizure and sale. If the draftsperson could be directed to shape it as necessary, and insert it in this clause.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, what is your pleasure? Is it that we should re-draft clause 36 (2) to fit the purpose under clause 56 (2) (b)?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, in all these, I believe if the Hon Chairman had not deleted those words, we would have been covered. So, I just want the Hon Chairman to take a cue, and then maybe, consequentially, take a cue from your own directions. [Pause.]

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, what did we agree on?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, you provided some direction to us, and I also said to the Hon Chairman that if he had left the clause 56 (2) (b) in the state that it was, we would not suffer this imperilment. So, I pleaded with the Hon Chairman to let the status quo remain, but the Hon Chairman, as the champion, would want to die hard. So, I plead with him to reinstate those words that he deleted, then we would be home and dry.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, if we reinstate “…except with the leave of the Court…”, then the court is at large; it could either be the Court of Appeal or the lower court. “Once the appeal is filed except with the leave of the court, the property shall not be disposed of or otherwise dealt with, before determination of the appeal…”

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, the appellate processes -- [Interruption] -- Once my Hon Leader has spoken, we would take a cue from him and not disturb the original rendition.

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

The Hon Second Deputy Speaker would take the Chair when we finish with this amendment. So, what would be the new rendition?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads: “Where the court makes a confis- cation order against property and a notice of appeal has been filed, a) The property shall not, except with the leave of the court and in accordance with the directions of the court, be disposed of or otherwise dealt with, before the determination of the appeal;”

Speaker
Mr First Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, the application is to reinstate clause 56 (2) in its original state. Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 56 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[MR SECOND DEPUTY SPEAKER IN THE CHAIR].

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, I am told that you are moving to clause 57 now. Clause 57 -- Void Transaction.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 57, at beginning, add “Subject to Clause 56 (1)” So, the new rendition for clause 57 reads: “Subject to clause 56 (1) the Court shall set aside a transaction related to property which is the subject of a confiscation order where the transaction was made after the seizure of the property or issue of a freezing order.” Mr Speaker, clause 57 is being made subject to 56 (1) because we have already made an exception for a purchaser of a property in good faith for valuable consideration without notice.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, I would put the Question. Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I beg to move a further minor amendment that “subject to that the court may set aside”. This is because it is still discretionary.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member for Wa West?

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, thank you very much. I noted that. It would be an Act, so we would refer to sections and not clauses. Hon Majority Leader, we are dealing with void transactions.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I withdraw my proposed amendment.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Thank you very much. Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 57 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 58 -- Protection of third parties.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58, subclause (1), line 2, after “property” insert “or where a court makes a confiscation order against a property”.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, the new rendition would read

“Where an application is made to the court for a confiscation order against a property, or where a court makes a confiscation order against property, a person who claims an interest in the property shall apply to the court for an order declaring the interest of the person.”.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, you have to move your amendment again?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 58, subclause (1), line 2, after “property” insert “or where a Court makes a confiscation order against a property”.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, so, you insist on “against a property”. What we have here is “against property” but you have introduced “a” to read “against a property”.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to further amend the proposed amendment that we delete “a” before “property”.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, so, the new rendition reads

“Where an application is made to the court for a confiscation order against property, or where a court makes a confiscation order against property, a person who claims an interest in the property shall apply to the court for an order declaring the interest of the person.”

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member for Wa West?

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, do we make a confiscation order in respect of property or against property? Once the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is here, I just want a clarification. I have seen it in the Bill, and I thought that we make a confiscation order in respect of a property; but if it is against a property, then it is serious.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Well, that is a drafting terminology, and the draftspersons are here. “In respect of” is being summarised to “against”, so we may crosscheck from them and make sure that we are on the right path. Hon Chairman, you could ask the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice to crosscheck with the draftspersons, since they are here, whether “against” is a drafting language. Then we could go on.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, while we are waiting to get the direction from the draftsperson with respect to the right terminology to use, I would want to know if we could proceed, or we should wait for their direction? Mr Speaker, because --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I would direct that the draftspersons should take note and put the appropriate terminology so that we could move to the next proposed amendment. Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 58 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 60 -- Payment instead of confiscation order.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman of the Committee?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 60, headnote, delete “Payment instead of confiscation order” and insert “Payment of Pecuniary Order”. Mr Speaker, we are informed that the correct terminology is “Payment of Pecuniary Order” instead of “Payment instead of confiscation order”. Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 60 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 61 -- Procedure for enforcement of order for payment.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 61, subclause (1), paragraph (a), line 3, delete “five” and insert “ten”. So the new rendition reads: “61. (1) Where the court orders a person to pay an amount instead of confiscation of property as provided in section 60, that amount shall be treated as a fine imposed on the person in respect of a conviction for corruption or a corruption related offence, and the court shall, (a) impose in default of the payment of that amount, a term of imprisonment of not less than twelve months and not more than ten years despite any provision con- tained in any other enact- ment;” Mr Speaker, we are trying to enhance the punishment for the disobedience of the order. The original rendition had five years; we are increasing it to 10 years.

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Mr Speaker, in my opinion, this would be problematic. The reason is simply because corruption itself is a misdemeanour. As a substantive offence, it is a misdemeanour.

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, you are very right on that. When I listened to the Hon Chairman, I started shaking my head. I thought it was not possible in the circumstance. Hon Members, but I have been reminded that when this issue cropped up earlier, a directive was given, that the draftsperson should synchronise the terms of sentences with the maximum being three years. We would still refer that to the draftsperson to do the right thing. I would proceed to put the Question with regard to this proposed amendment. Hon Chairman, are we together?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, yes.

Speaker
Mr Speaker

Hon Chairman, is it not better for us to rather delete the five years and insert the maximum sentence regime of three years for misdemeanour? Yes, Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, as it has been canvassed, we have problems with the sanction regime. The other day, when I raised it, the Chair upheld that the draftspersons together with the Table Office should do the reconciliation of the sanction regimes that are proposed. So, I believe this could also be referred to them to do what is right.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I have done that already, but I have to put the Question. I wonder whether I should put it on “ten years” or “three years.”

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

The Hon Chairman would now withdraw.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, do the right thing so that I could move on. The Hon Majority Leader has advised that in the circumstance, you withdraw your proposed amendment, so that the status quo would remain, and I agree with him.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I seek your leave to withdraw the proposed amendment so that the status quo remains.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Leave granted. Amendment withdrawn by leave of the House. Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

None Clause 62 -- Application for pecuniary order.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Sorry, Hon Majority Leader.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I rose up earlier to draw attention to an omission. Mr Speaker, the Hon Chairman apparently proposed an amendment to clause 60. Unfortunately, the Order Paper has taken it to another destination that I guess, was unintended. It appears now on pages 17 and 18 of today's Order Paper. Mr Speaker, that indeed was supposed to be the amendment proposed from the Committee. We may have to revisit what we have done in respect of clause 60.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, it is within our powers to go back to clause 60. We are at the Consideration Stage; the rules are relaxed. We only need your indulgence because I would grant the leave, and I hope that you would indulge the Hon Chairman, for us to take clause 60 again. Is that the sense of the House? Alright, Hon Chairman?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence and the indulgence of the House. Mr Speaker, I beg to move, new clause, add the following new clause after clause 59: “Application for Pecuniary Penalty Order; 60. (1) Where the Special Prosecutor applies to the court for a pecuniary penalty order against a person convicted of corruption or a corruption related offence, the court shall make an assessment based on evidence to determine the benefit derived by the convicted person from corruption or a corruption related offence. (2) Where the Special Prosecutor applies to the court for a pecuniary penalty order; (a) The Special Prosecutor shall give the respondent not less than eight days written notice of the application; and (b) The respondent may appear and adduce evidence at the hearing of the application on a date determined by the court. (3) The Court shall order the person to pay the Republic an amount equal to the value of the benefit obtained from the commission of corruption and a corruption related offence or a higher amount if the court is satisfied that the person benefited from the corruption and the corruption related offence. (4) The court shall consider; (a) property that appears to the Court to be held by the convicted person on the day on which the application is made; and (b) property that appears to the Court to be held by the convicted person at any time, to be property derived, obtained or realized as a result of the corruption and corruption related offence if it was acquired by the convicted person before, during or within a reasonable time after the period of

Speaker
Mr Banda

Speaker
Mr Speaker, the new rendition shall read

“The respondent shall appear and adduce evidence at the hearing of the application on a date determined by the court.” Thank you.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, the Committee proposes that before we take clause 60 as numbered in the Bill, we insert a new clause, which they have numbered as 60 on page 17 of the Order Paper. So, that new clause has nothing to do with the current clause 60, which is in the Bill. It is a new clause that is being inserted. So, I would proceed to put the Question and leave the numbering of the sections to the draftspersons. Question put and amendment agreed to. . Clause 60 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman of the Committee, are we also taking the one on page 18?

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Mr Speaker, it appears that this morning's Order Paper has created a bit of disorder. The reason is that on page 15, an amendment proposed deals with clause 29. We also have on page 16, an amendment proposed on clauses 47 and 48, which have been dealt with already because of the fact that we are going from page to page in the Order Paper. These clauses have been voted upon already by the House. So, unless we take them at Second Consideration Stage, it would not be possible for us to do them today.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Member, you are right. I direct that the new clauses on page 15 of the Order Paper be taken through a Second Consideration Stage. So, that we would continue to follow the current Bill as it is. Clause 62 -- Application for pecuniary penalty order

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 62 delete. Mr Speaker, this is because it has been provided for under the new clause 60 on page 17 of the Order Paper. Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 62 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I believe we were unsure of where to locate the amendment that the Hon Chairman proffered, which appears on pages 17 and 18 of the Order Paper. In reality, it should replace the original clause 62. So, clause 62 is now being deleted for it to be substituted by what we have just adopted, in respect of the amendment that appears on pages 17 and 18 of the Order Paper, so that we are very clear in our minds about what we have done.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Majority Leader, that was why I repeated it twice to inform the House, that the amendment we took, which was alleged to be before clause 60, has rather replaced clause 62. So, the draftsperson would number it accordingly. Clause 63 -- Lifting the veil.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, the proposed amendment stands in the name of Hon Andrew Kofi Egyapa Mercer.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Andrew Kofi Egyapa Mercer, was the very senior counsel, Mr Mercer, your father?

Speaker
Mr Andrew Kofi Egyapa Mercer

Yes, Mr Speaker. That is my late father.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

All right. Hon Member, just a minute. Looking at the Business before us, I would want to direct that Sitting be extended beyond the prescribed time. Hon Member, continue.

Speaker
Mr Mercer

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 63, add the following new subclause: “(1) Where the Special Prosecutor suspects that a property is subject to the effective control of a person on trial for corruption or corruption-related offences, the Special Prosecutor shall apply to the court to lift the veil.” Mr Speaker, the rationale for the proposal is that clause 63, as it stands, does not provide for a procedure where an application is made to the court for lifting of the corporate veil. I believe that this new insertion would help to clarify that the court does not act suo motu when it is seized with an issue relating to lifting the corporate veil. Action to lift the veil must come by way of an application to the court. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, in clause 63(1), the Hon Chairman of the Committee, on behalf of the Committee, proposed an amendment. We have not dealt with it and we jump to consider a new subclause. I believe this arrangement is improper. We should deal with the amendment proposed by the Hon Chairman.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

The arrangement on the Order Paper is what caused the problem. The amendment to clause 63(1) is what the Hon Chairman should have moved. The new clause that

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 63, subclause (1), line 1, after “shall” insert “in determining the application”. The new rendition reads: “The court shall in determining the application treat as property of a person, property that in the opinion of the court, is subject to the effective control of the person, to”

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, I am sure you have been following the Hon Chairman and he has moved the amendment.

Speaker
Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini

Mr Speaker, even though I have no problem with the intention behind the amendment, it appears that it has a gab. There is a lacuna because we say, “in determining the application”. [Interruption.] Clause 62 has been deleted.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, that is why the proposed amendment by the Hon Andrew Kofi Egyapa Mercer would fill in that lacuna, because he talks about us inserting a new clause which would now introduce the application. And so, it would follow and flow from the first proposal that an application has been referred and that is why he refers to it as “the application”. Are we together? That may be the reason they were arranged in that order, but rightly, let us move on and at the right time, the draftspersons would insert it. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, it is now the turn of the Hon Member -- Hon Andrew Kofi Egyapa Mercy. I am sorry, your name is ‘Mercer', not ‘Mercy'. [Laughter.]

Speaker
Mr Mercer

That is so, Mr Speaker. You got it right the first time. So, I will pardon you.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

You were trying to be merciful with me, right?

Speaker
Mr Mercer

Very well, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 63 subclause (1), paragraph (b), at the end, add “or pecuniary order”. So, the new rendition shall read: “The court shall in determining the application treat as property of a person, property that in the opinion of the court is subject to the effective control of the person, to (a) assess the value of benefits derived by a person from corruption or corruption related offence; and (b) make a confiscation order or pecuniary order.”

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

Mr Speaker, I thought the Hon Member of the Committee would have moved his amendment advertised at page 10 of the Order Paper as amendment numbered (xxviii) to fill in the vacuum before we come to --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, we would come to it. Because we started with clause 1 and this second one is on clause 1, we would want to take the clause 1 before we add the new clause. Hon Member for Wa West, I saw you on your feet early on.

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, I was trying to draw your attention to the fact that on page 10 of the Order Paper, we have amendment numbered (xxx) in the name of the Hon Chairman and the Hon Member who wanted to move it. So, I thought that once that was a joint one, we should have taken it before going to his.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

That is the one that we are taking actually. Hon Members, please, I need your attention. The Hon Chairman deferred to the Hon Member to move that amendment and he has just done that, so, that is what is under consideration now.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, you have been called to clarify your amendment.

Speaker
Mr Mercer

Mr Speaker, the purpose of the amendment to include “pecuniary order” is to afford the court the opportunity to make a determination whether in lifting a veil and in making the assessment of the value of the benefit, the court would want to make either a confiscation order or a pecuniary order. That is the purpose of the proposed amendment.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

We have to look at it critically because the court is being called upon to assess the value of benefits derived by a person from corruption or a corruption related offence. And so, when assessing the value, we talk about it in monetary terms. Then one follows with an order to confiscate, but it seems we are looking at it as that property.

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

Mr Speaker, I think the amendment is proper and the Committee came to that conclusion. Mr Speaker, we have two scenarios, where a property is in effective control of a person, which the court still finds so and the property can be subject to a confiscation order, then, that order would be made. But where the property cannot be subject to a confiscation order, for instance, if the corruption-related offence involves the purchase of a vehicle and the vehicle has been so used, that confiscating the vehicle to the State would be a loss of a kind, the court, having assessed that the vehicle was bought new and has been so used that its value has depreciated, the court would then make a pecuniary order for the money to be paid to the State. That is the sense in which a pecuniary order can be made. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Member for Effutu?

Speaker
Mr Afenyo-Markin

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, as my Hon Ranking Member rightly pointed out, a pecuniary penalty order is just an order compelling the person to pay money. That is a pecuniary penalty order. Pecuniary means monetary. And when we read clause 63 (1)(a), what it says is that; “The court shall… assess the benefits derived by a person from corruption or corruption related offence; and (b) make a confiscation order or pecuniary penalty order. So, subclause (b) is the right place for a pecuniary penalty order to be placed. It is either a confiscation order or a pecuniary penalty order.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I think this is clear because the proceeds from corruption could be in two forms. It could just be property and it could also be in monetary terms. So, a confiscation order would be made against property, and a pecuniary penalty order would be made against the monetary benefit of the corrupt act or conduct. I think that is what the proposed amendment is meant to fill in. So, with that understanding, we proceed to put the Question.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, except to add that for consistency, we have been talking about ‘pecuniary penalty order'. Shall we be consistent in that phraseology instead of saying pecuniary order? I think it is something that could lead to a bad precedence.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Chairman?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, if you say ‘pecuniary penalty order' or ‘pecuniary order', it is the same. It is a punishment so you can say ‘pecuniary penalty —

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, you cannot blame the Hon Majority Leader. That is the terminology used throughout the Bill. The terminology used is “pecuniary penalty order”. So, the Hon Majority Leader is just referring us to that terminology and I think he is right. So, I will proceed to put the Question. Hon Members, I think your whispering is too loud now. I am putting the Question on the amendment moved by Hon Andrew Kofi Egyapa Mercer. And the Question is that clause 63 be further amended at subclause (1), paragraph (b), at the end of it, add the phrase ‘or pecuniary penalty order'.

Speaker
Mr Afenyo-Markin

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Sorry, Hon Member?

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I do not think that was too necessary. Once I have referred to the ‘pecuniary penalty order' without adding that it was further amended by the Hon Majority Leader, the Hansard would definitely have captured that it was further proposed to be amended by the Hon Majority Leader. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

We would now take the last amendment on clause 63, coming from Hon Andrew Mercer again.

Speaker
Mr Mercer

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 63, add the following new sub- clause: “(1) Where the Special Prosecutor suspects that a property is subject to the effective control of a person on trial for corruption or corruption-related offences, the Special Prosecutor shall apply to the court to lift the veil.” Mr Speaker, the rationale for this proposition is that the Bill as it currently stands, seems to suggest a lacuna where there is no process for the initiation of the lifting of the veil. This amendment provides for a process where the lifting of the veil must come by way of application to the court.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I thought this was straightforward because we early on referred to it. The Hon Member for Tamale Central drew our attention to this lacuna but, maybe, there are divergent views on it. Let me allow the Hon Member for Bolga East to make his contribution first.

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the amendment because it brings coherence to this section of the Bill. However, it does not clearly bring out the idea of the corporate lifting of the veil which the Hon Member tried to convey here. So, I would propose a further amendment to the effect that: “Where the Special Prosecutor suspects that a property is held by another person but is subject to the effective control of the person on trial for corruption or corruption- related offences, the Special Prosecutor shall apply to the court to lift the veil.” This is because, the property must be held by a third person. Usually that would be a corporate entity before you could lift the veil. The reason you would lift the veil was that if it were subject to the effective control of the person charged with corruption or a corruption related offence and that has not been brought out clearly in the proposed amendment.

Speaker
Mr Afenyo-Markin

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, a person could be an individual or a corporate body, so we do not need to bring in those terminologies. I agree that there is a need to clarify the proposed amendments. We would need to redraft it to make sure that what it is meant to achieve is that, the property is in the name of a person who is not under trial, but the person under trial is in effective control of that property. That is why we need to lift the veil to see who actually owns the property. The procedure would have to be by an application which is lacking in the clause as it stands. Even though at clause 63(4), there is a reference that the application shall be on notice, “The Special Prosecutor shall give notice of the application…” but there was no earlier mention of “application”. So, the proposal is in the right direction, but we would need to redraft it properly. I would await the right rendition before I put the Question. I hope the draftsperson got it right. Could we put it this way? “Where the Special Prosecutor suspects that a property is held by another person but is subject to the effective control of a person on trial for corruption or corruption-related offences, the Special Prosecutor shall apply to the court to lift the veil.” Is that all right?

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Mr Speaker, I think that was the sense that was conveyed. So, thank you very much for the new rendition.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, first of all, for consistency, I think we should rather capture: “or a corruption- related offence” but not “corruption- related offences”. Mr Speaker, having said so, I also want us to be very consistent in our description of whoever is in control of a property. Here, we said that the person on trial should be in effective control; the description is “effective control”. In clause 31(3)(b), we said the person should be in apparent control. So, we should be consistent. If we said “apparently under the control” then we should use “apparent control”, and if it is “effective control”, it should be same. So, let us be very consistent.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Clause 31(3)(b)?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Let us take this particular clause and maybe, you can come by a Second Consideration for the fine tuning of clause 31(3)(b), I believe it is better to use the words “effective control” than the words “apparent control”.

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Member for Tamale Central?

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

Mr Speaker, they actually mean two different things. Clause 31 talks to a situation in which a search warrant has been issued, but the property to be searched is in the apparent control of somebody. It could not be with the owner of the property, but it is in the apparent control of that person. Mr Speaker, the clause 63 talks to a situation where the property could be in the apparent control of somebody, but it is in the effective control of another person and one is allowed to lift the veil, so they are on two different situations.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, what is the distinction between “apparent control” and “effective control”?

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

Mr Speaker, a person could be in “apparent control” of a situation when the property is in his name -- [Laughter] -- but “effective control” as defined in case law, is when a person is in apparent control but collection of rent, maintenance of the property, charges on the maintenance of the property and everything that points to the ownership of the property refers to another person. That other person is in effective control when that other person in apparent control cannot do anything with the property without recourse to the person in effective control. Mr Speaker, that is the difference.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, I am happy you defined “effective control” by referencing to case law, but with “apparent control”, you have not drawn our attention to any case law. [Laughter.] There would be a problem there and we would need to look at it properly.

Speaker
Mr Asamoa

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Member for Madina -- No, Hon Member for Adentan?

Speaker
Mr Asamoa

Mr Speaker, I have a Zongo in my constituency.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, but you are not in charge of their affairs.

Speaker
Mr Asamoa

Mr Speaker, no, I am not. Mr Speaker, the discussion is on how to establish effectiveness if one does not go in to lift the veil. To be able to determine that somebody is effectively in charge, certain parameters must be established and one is disabled from establishing that if one does not lift the veil. A person is in apparent control, but it is doubtful. We do not believe that the person in apparent control is the one who owns the property, therefore, the veil is lifted to establish who effectively owns the property. Mr Speaker, so we would want to amend “effective control” to “apparent control”.

Speaker
Mr Asamoa

Speaker
Dr Ayine

rose

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Mr Speaker, the purpose of lifting the veil is not to determine effective control, but it is to determine the ownership of the property which is the subject matter of the criminal trial. So, our central purpose is to make it possible for the Special Prosecutor to lift the veil, then determine the ownership of the property. Mr Speaker, in cooporate law, effective control is easily established. For instance, when a person is a 60 per cent shareholder, he or she appoints the directors and is in control of the company and that could be easily determined. For instance, if it is suspected that through corruption one commingled corrupt proceeds with the property of the company and for which a veil would have to be lifted -- once it is known that a person is a majority shareholder, then that is it - he or she has effective control.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

When one is a major shareholder, one is in apparent control. It is a legal issue.

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Member?

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

Mr Speaker, indeed, the Hon Member for Sekondi, Hon Kofi Mercer's amendment speaks to the two situations.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, it said

“where the Special Prosecutor suspects that a property held by another person is subject to the effective control …” Mr Speaker, even this amendment speaks to the two situations.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, are you satisfied now? I believe the situation has been clarified by the Hon Member for Tamale Central. Alhaji Abdul- Rashid Pelpuo -- rose

--

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Member for Wa Central?

Speaker
Alhaji Pelpuo

Mr Speaker, from the layman's point of view, I would want to say that we do not need to give an adjectival description of the kind of control because that should be determined by the court. So, we could just say “under the control”. It is the judge who would determine whether it is ‘effective' or ‘apparent', so that we would save ourselves the trouble of giving a direct definition of the term before it goes to the court.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, the reason we would have to use adjectives is not to rub in every situation. At least, the control should be up to some degree before the person is brought in and that is why the adjectives are used, but if we just use general terms such as “control”, it would cover everything and a farmer may be grabbed as being in control because he is going to weed the farm.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, the problem is, if the veil is lifted, it would go beyond the person who is in control to determine who is in effective control. The person in effective control may still not be the owner of the property.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

The veil is lifted to establish ownership.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, precisely. I just wanted to say that in that case, we should go for ownership but not who is in effective control. [Interruption.] Yes, because control is different - is different from ownership. Whoever is in effective control may not be the owner. We would want to establish the identity of who the true owner is.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

At this stage we still talk about suspicion. We are not determining it; it is for the court to do so.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, when we apply for the veil to be lifted, what is the ultimate; what do we want to establish? We want to establish who owns the property and not merely who is in effective control.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, it is not us; we would want to provide a process and an authority to the court to establish. It is the court that would establish.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, what I said was that the construction that this amendment would give us is as follows: “Where the Special Prosecutor suspects that a property held by another person is subject to the effective control of the person on trial for corruption or corruption- related offence, the Special Prosecutor shall apply to the court to lift the veil”. Mr Speaker, I am questioning what the motive would be. One applies for the veil to be lifted to establish, not only the person in effective control, but beyond that, who the owner of the property is. Mr Speaker, that is why I am saying that the ultimate destination is establishing the ownership. So, are we looking for the owner or the person in effective control? We are looking for the owner.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, we are looking for the owner, but I believe, we are imagining a situation where the owner is not the legal owner. In the sense that documentation and every other thing would not show or point in the direction of the owner. It would point in the direction of a completely different person. But benefit wise, the direction is pointing to a different person. So, the idea behind the provision is to enable a court to disregard evidence of legal ownership vested in one person, and to treat beneficial interests as evidence that one is in effective control so that

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I believe the earlier proposed amendment which I read out is the proper thing to do. This is because, at that stage, it would be difficult to know that the person is the owner of the property until the veil is lifted by the court. So, this is an application calling on the court to allow that process to lift the veil now to probe further to establish the actual owner of the property. So, we are just seeing that somebody is in effective control, either by the percentage of shareholding or by various acts and conducts of the person in possession, or even if not in possession, by micro-managing the property. So, I would plead with the Hon Majority Leader to reconsider his stand.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, on account of the amendment that we effected in the Companies (Amendment) Act in 2016, to establish who the real beneficial interest owners are, I believe I would agree with the proposal by Hon Andrew K. E. Mercer, that we need to go for the persons in effective control of property who may not necessarily be the owners. Mr Speaker, this is because, for instance, a person called Mahama Ayariga could construct a facility, and it would be in the name of his child, who is a child by legal definition and has not worked in his life before, and yet, an Ayariga builds a storey building in the name of ‘Ayariga Jnr', a thirteen year old who has not even completed school. Effectively, he would be the owner.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

That is legally incorrect.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, this is in a lighter vein.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

No! But that is not correct. That is a minor and I believe that ‘Ayariga' would not want to be referred to in such a situation.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, the “Ayariga” in this House is, “Hon Ayariga” — [Laughter.]

Speaker
Mr Afenyo

Markin — rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I thought we have exhausted this issue, but I can see the Hon Member for Effutu on his feet. [Interruption.]

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

We are looking at actual ownership and not legal ownership.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, I will put the Question, and it is that, we add a new clause to clause 63 to read as follows: “Where the Special Prosecutor suspects that a property held by another person is subject to the effective control of a person on trial for corruption or corruption-related offence, the Special Prosecutor shall apply to the court to lift the veil.” Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 63 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, because of the way clause 60 -- et cetera, there is a cross-reference there to clause 61, so the draftspersons should take note.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, there is reference to section 61 at line 2 of clause 64, and I direct the draftspersons to take note of it and refer to the appropriate section. Hon Member, thank you for drawing our attention to it. Clauses 64 and 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 66 — Production order on application

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, at the outset, we agreed to take a suspension at 2.30 p.m. Fortunately, we have travelled some distance. So, I may appeal that we take a suspension now and come back at 4.00 p.m.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, can we just take clauses 66 and 67 which deal with deletion and we stop at the “Realisation of property”. We are now at “Production order on application”, and they propose we delete both. That is what I see at page 11 of the Order Paper. Hon Chairman, am I right?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, rightly so.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

So, we can just take that clause and suspend after that. Clause 66 -- Production order on application

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 66 delete.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman of the Committee, what is the reason for calling on us to delete the clause?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, there has been a structural arrangement of some of the clauses. So, clause 66 is being shifted to a different area. We would realise that clause 67 is being captured under page 15 of the Order Paper, and you have directed that, that must be taken under the second Consideration Stage. So there is a whole structural arrangement in respect of some of the clauses.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, we are being told that there is a rearrangement of the clauses and, so, those two clauses, starting with clause 66, would be taken care of later. I would put the Question. Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 66 ordered to be deleted from the Bill. Clause 67 -- Requirements for making production order

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 67 delete. Mr Speaker, the explanation I gave under clause 66, which has just been dealt with, applies to this clause too.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, the proposal is to delete clause 67. Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 67 ordered to be deleted from the Bill.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, that brings us to the end of Consideration Stage for now. Hon Members, I direct that we suspend Sitting for one hour. We would therefore, reconvened at 4.00 p.m. 2.59 p.m. -- Sitting suspended. 5.00 p.m. -- Sitting resumed.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, be seated. Before we took a suspension, we were at clause 68. Clause 68 -- Realisation of property

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause (1), opening phrase, line 1, before “pecuniary” insert “con- fiscation order or”.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads

“Where a confiscation order or pecuniary penalty order is made, not discharged and not subject to an appeal, the court shall, on an application by the Special Prosecutor, …” Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68 subclause (1), paragraph (c), line 2, delete “give” and insert “surrender”. So, the new rendition reads: c) “order a person who has possession of the realisable property to surrender possession of the property to the Special Prosecutor; “ Mr Speaker, we think that “surrender” is more elegant than “give” and therefore, the proposed amendment.

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

Mr Speaker, I support the amendment, but I was wondering whether we should not add after “Special Prosecutor,” “or ‘authorised person”. Mr Speaker, surrender of the property could only be to the Special Prosecutor or a person authorised by the Special Prosecutor.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, what do you say to that?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, once it is an order from the court, we would wish that the realisable property be surrendered to the Special Prosecutor. Since he or she is in charge, the court could make any order in respect of the surrender of any realisable property to any person in the Office of the Special Prosecutor. I think that order should be to the occupant of the Office, who is the Special Prosecutor but not to any person authorised by the Special Prosecutor.

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Hon Minority Leader's position. The reason is that there may be circumstances in which the Special Prosecutor cannot take direct possession of the property. So, for instance, in a situation of a winding up, where the property of the company commingles with property that is the subject matter of prosecution, the Special Prosecutor could ask the liquidator of the company to take possession of that property. So, I believe in those circumstances, the Special Prosecutor may authorise the liquidator to do that on his behalf. So, authorisation is a legitimate point, which the Hon Minority Leader is made.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I believe the issue raised by the Hon Minority Leader is inherent, and we cannot legislate this. Mr Speaker, I say so because when we go to clause 36 -- Seizure; the seizure could be done by an authorised officer, but when an authorised officer does it, then he must take an inventory immediately and submit to the Special Prosecutor. It is the same thing in the case of freezing. Mr Speaker, it means he bears ultimate responsibility. it has to be with the realisation of the property, then it would follow the same principles. I think that if he has to do it, he would not be stopped by any provision in the Bill to do what is required of him. Mr Speaker, so, I do not think that we would need to legislate this.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I have been informed that clause 13 (3) of the Bill takes care of his concern, so, I believe it ought not to be repeated here. Mr Speaker, besides --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, you sat down suddenly without concluding your sentence. Have you abandoned the point that you were raising?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I have not abandoned the point. I thought that I had exhausted same because I referred you to the fact that the Hon Member's concern -

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

What you referred to deals with the functions of the Special Prosecutor.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, rightly so.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

With this one, we are talking about an order from the court.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I wanted to add that when we read the rendition of the provision well, the application is made by the Special Prosecutor himself, but not any person authorised by the Special Prosecutor. If any application is made by the Special Prosecutor to the court, any order made in respect of realisable property should be made to the Special Prosecutor, and not to any person authorised by the Special Prosecutor. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, we are still on clause 68. Hon Chairman of the Committee?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 68, subclause (3), line 2, delete “representations” and insert “an application”

Speaker
Mr Speaker, the new rendition reads

“The court shall give a person who holds interest in the property reasonable opportunity to make an application to the court before making an order under paragraph (b), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (1) and also under subsection (2).” Mr Speaker, we think that inserting the words “an application” is better than “representations” because it is more elegant.

Speaker
Alhaji Pelpuo

Mr Speaker, I would just want to suggest the possibility of changing the words to “make an application” to “apply” to the court. This sounds better. The repetition of “to make” in the same line --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, we have gone past -- Hon Member, are you talking about the same subclause (3)?

Speaker
Alhaji Pelpuo

Mr Speaker, yes.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Instead of saying “an application”, you are saying “to apply”. Hon Chairman of the Committee, have your heard him? What do you say to that, before I listen to the --

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, in substance, it does not make any difference, so, it could be “applying to the court” or “make an application” to the court.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

He is talking about legal language.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, it should read, “applying to the court “or “making an application to the court” --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

You could apply to the court, but to make an application to the court could also mean different things in court.

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

Mr Speaker, I have a difficulty with the Hon Chairman's proposed amendment. Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I beg to read the flow of subclause (3): “The court shall give a person who holds interest in the property reasonable opportunity to make representation …” Mr Speaker, that is appropriate, so we do not need to change it to “application” because we would now be giving the person an opportunity to justify. It is not an application. So, I believe the original rendition in the Bill should be maintained. It is not an intention to apply. Apply for what? We are saying that the court should give him an opportunity to make representation or submissions to the court on the matter in question. So, we do not need to bring “apply” or “an application”. It is an opportunity given to the person to submit his views. That i s what “representation” here means. It is not an application. In court, he knows what an application is.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, I support the position of the Hon Minority Leader. I believe “representation” is intended here. I do not believe it is a mistake, which should be changed. Mr Speaker, as we all know, an application is different from when a court is asked to hear somebody before taking a decision. It is in the principle of natural justice that one must hear somebody before one condemns his or her property. So, the opportunity to make a representation is different from an application being made. Mr Speaker, in my opinion, the word there should be “representation”. The court would want to hear from the other party. The court would want to hear from the affected party before it takes a decision. So, the court would want to give the affected party an opportunity to make representation before it takes a decision, since that person's property rights are involved. That essentially is the spirit animating this clause.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I believe the focus of the proposal from the Hon Minority Leader is the grant of access to the court for a person to make some verbal submissions. How does one do it? Mr Speaker, one does not just walk into the court. He would go to the court by making an application, which would contain some justification; what is intended to be done --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, this is done during the course of the application made by the Special Prosecutor. During the course of hearing that application, the court would make it possible for the person who has interest in the property to be heard before the order is made. That is what it is meant to be. So, the person is not called to put in a fresh application. That is what is being put forward.

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, I support the Hon Minority Leader's position because that is proper English language.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I am sorry. So, which one is improper English language? [Laughter.]

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Yes, Mr Speaker, that is proper English language because with what the Hon Majority Leader talked about, he just talked about people who make applications or write applications for jobs. [Laughter.] But this is not that. A person has been given an opportunity to present his side of the story does not make any application to the court. I would urge the Hon Chairman to stand down that amendment. The correct English language is “representation”.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, with respect to my Hon Colleague from Wa West, he said I talked about application for jobs. With respect to him, I believe that is a pedestrian understanding of what I said. It is a very pedestrian appreciation of the issue that I raised. Mr Speaker, I said that we do not walk to court to make a submission. That representation he talked about would be afforded space of an application. That, indeed, is what I said; the application would contain the rationalisation for what space a person would want to be accorded. Mr Speaker, that is what I said. So, for him to understand what I said to mean it is the application for jobs, it is a very unfortunate appreciation of what I said.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Well, the way you presented it, one does not just walk to court; it is so pedestrian. So, he just also decided to joke over it.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, in a situation like this, it is perfectly possible that when we read that clause, the expression, “an opportunity to make a representation”, could entail the affected party putting in an application and stating his or her case. Mr Speaker, but it might also not be an application. It could just be that the court would say they would want to hear from him about the issues that are before it. for which the court has to take a decision. In this case, the person does not make an application, he would simply state his side of the story. So, it is better to leave it as “representation” than to limit it to “application”. This is because in an application, one would have to say that, “my Lord, I am applying for”; but in this case, one might not apply for anything. It is the court

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, could we adopt this phrase? I would read this rendition to see whether it satisfies the situation; “(3) The court shall give a person who holds interest in the property reasonable opportunity to be heard in court before making an order under paragraphs (b), (c), (d) or (e) of subsection (1) and also under subsection (2) to be heard in court.” Would that resolve the situation?

Speaker
Alhaji Pelpuo

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I would want to listen to the Hon Chairman; I would come to you.

Speaker
Alhaji Pelpuo

Mr Speaker, let me say something for him to consider. Mr Speaker, we could delete “court” and just say “to be heard”.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

To be heard where?

Speaker
Alhaji Pelpuo

Mr Speaker, this is because if the court gives someone an opportunity to be heard, it shows that it is to be heard in court.

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

Mr Speaker, respectfully, the headnote of clause 68 is realisation of property. Mr Speaker, for emphasis and to explain my point, let me refer to clause 68, subclause (1): “(1) Where pecuniary penalty order is made … on an application by the by the Special Prosecutor,” There is already an application. So, subclause (3) is to give the respondent the opportunity to explain or submit his or her version.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

It is part of the drafting language.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Rt Hon Speaker, we know that -- [Interruption.] -- Mr Speaker, we know that --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, you are right in referring to me as Rt Hon Speaker. Yes, so go on. [Laughter.]

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, you know in our normal practice or in civil proceedings, when a judgement is given and a subject matter is to be attached, and somebody claims to have an interest in the subject, the person may file what we refer to as an interpleader application. This particular scenario is in the nature of an interpleader application in a civil matter. Mr Speaker, a person cannot just go to court and tell it, that he or she has an interest in a subject matter that is to be realised, and ask for an opportunity to make presentations or an opportunity to be heard. Once it is a court of record, the person needs to file a formal application giving the ground. [Interruption] --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Did I hear the voice of the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice? There is a background voice similar to hers.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, the person has to file a formal application or a document detailing his or her interest, and justify why he or she has an interest in that subject matter that has been attached, for which reason that aspect of the person's interest cannot be sold. A person cannot just enter into a court room and say that the court should give him or her an opportunity to be heard. Mr Speaker, if the matter concerns the accused person standing trial before the court and the order is made, then we could say that the accused person be given the opportunity to be heard. But this particular case refers to a third person who claims to have an interest in the subject matter, for which reason his or her interest cannot be disposed of because he is an interested party. Mr Speaker, in a nutshell, this is analogous to an interpleader application. Therefore, there should be a formal application to the court for it to determine the merit or otherwise of it.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, could one go by the route of a joinder?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, a joinder in a criminal matter? I wonder whether it is possible. This is because a joinder applies to civil matters, where a person who is interested -- Even there, before the determination of the matter, they would want to --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Strictly speaking, is this procedure a criminal one?

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, strictly speaking, it is not.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, but I wonder whether at this stage, legally speaking, it is possible for that interested person to apply to join. He would have to come on his own and make a formal application to the court or probably file an affidavit of interest. It would depend on the circumstance of the case whether to apply or to file an affidavit of interest, for his interest in that subject matter to be determined. So, it is not necessarily making representation. Whatever be the case, it is either he applies to make his representations or he files an affidavit of interest. He would still make representation. So, whether it is an application or affidavit of interest, it is assumed that at the end of the day, the person would have to justify by making formal representations to the court. Mr Speaker, I think the affidavit or interest or --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

So, by your own submission, the person does not need at all times to make an application, but he could file an affidavit? So, if you ask that we should amend it to delete “make presentations” and insert “make an application”, we would exclude instances where one could file an affidavit. I understand you. Yes, Hon Ranking Member?

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

Mr Speaker, on this occasion I rise reluctantly to crave the indulgence of my Hon Chairman to drop the amendment. Representation to the court is all encompassing; it looks at all other procedures that would be available to a person to scale the ends of justice. It may even arrest same. So, when he says “an application”, he forecloses the procedure to another. Mr Speaker, I believe the general usage has been “representation”. As lawyers in court, we would say that the plaintiff, defendants or witnesses make representations to court. That is what we normally say. So, to say “application”, what does he mean? Does he mean an interpleader application or what?

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Inusah Fuseini, as I pointed out to him, he has even argued against submission, when he said that a person could come by not just an application, but it could be done by an affidavit.

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

Yes, Mr Speaker.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

So, the terms used here, “make presentations”, would include all. It would encompass an interpleader, a formal application and filing of an affidavit. They are all part of making representations. Is that not so? I am guiding the House. I can see the Hon Member for Effutu. Yes, Hon Member?

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Actually, EOCO is not a court.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

You said practice of EOCO, but we are talking about what is before a court.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Your conclusion is completely contrary to your submission. I do not know whether you had some false landing. It was gymnastics. Your submissions all supported the view that it was better to rather take representations, then you ended by supporting application and so, I do not know. Let me listen to the Hon Member of Parliament for Jirapa. I have not heard from you today.

Speaker
Dr Francis B. Dakura

Mr Speaker, I believe the lawyers are the ones who are causing the confusion because they do not even understand it. This is a simple matter. Those of us who are not lawyers understand this to be straightforward and simple. They are confusing the matter. The issue is that, when you are a lawyer and you want to represent people, you cannot just go and represent the person or your client. You have to apply to a court. So, in talking about representation, the process of application is inclusive. So, what is all this argument for? [Laughter.] I am not a lawyer but I understand this in very simple English - - commonsensical, not whimsical. It is straightforward. We know. Mr Speaker, when you go to court to represent people, you first have to apply to the court. You cannot just walk in there and start representing your client. So, I believe that the representation is inclusive with the application process, so let us leave this rendition as it stands.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, in view of the submissions made, would you reconsider your position? If you say “No”, I will put the Question; if you say “Yes”, then it would ease up matters.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, we have had a second thought over the provision and we will leave it as it is and proceed.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, this is to crave your indulgence. If you look at the same clause 68(1)(b), it says: “Where a pecuniary penalty order is made, not discharged and not subject to an appeal, the Court shall, on an application by the Special Prosecutor, (b)empower the Special Prose- cutor to take possession …” (d)empower the Special Prose- cutor to dispose of the realisable property …” Mr Speaker, what does “empower” entail in this? Is it to direct him or her to carry out the conduct or confer power on that person to do so? What is the intention with which this rendition is presented?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I believe we can delete “empower” and insert “direct” or “order”.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman, you need to take a second look at the rendition. Hon Mahama Ayariga did not capture the earlier amendment you made to that clause. Now, before your intervention, we had accepted a proposal from the Hon Chairman to insert “confiscation order or” and so, orders have already been made. Where a confiscation order or pecuniary penalty order is made, “not discharged and not subject to an appeal …” So, the order has already been made to confiscate the property. “The court shall on an application by the Special Prosecutor”; the Special Prosecutor is going for more clarification or orders and that is where you can “direct that the Special Prosecutor manage the property”. Now, they have ordered that you confiscate the property. You are going for a further direction and they are now ordering you to manage the property. The second one is to empower the Special Prosecutor. That is where you have a problem with the word “empower”. “The Special Prosecutor takes possession. Taking possession - what kind of empowerment would that be? So, it is another direct.

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

Actually, there is nothing wrong with “empower”; it is just to vest the Special Prosecutor with power to take over. It is just like “authorise”.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Not “direct”?

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

Mr Speaker, “Direct” -- the directions of the court is a power of the court to do something. That is why it is captured that way. If you look at paragraph (a) to (e), it could all have been “direct” because the court would direct the Special Prosecutor to take certain steps. So, we can say “direct”, “empower”, “authorise” -- [Interruption.] The Attorney-General is suggesting that instead of ‘empower', we could say ‘direct'. 5. 50 p.m.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, could we use the word ‘direct' for all so that we would rather say, ‘On an application by the Special Prosecutor, direct, and then you go; the Special Prosecutor to do this and you continue. So, we use ‘direct' instead of ‘order' and ‘empower', and they mean the same thing to make it more elegant. Yes, Hon Minority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

Mr Speaker, the difficulty, as the Hon Member for Bawku Central indicated, is the word ‘empower'; it is nebulous. And Mr Speaker, if you read clause 68(1)(b) well, probably, you do not even need the word there because ‘the Court shall on an application by the Special Prosecutor…' I am sure the intention is to enable the Special Prosecutor take possession of the realisable property. So, I think your guidance is useful. We do not need the word ‘empower' at all. We direct or the words can just stay because it reads further; “…subject to the conditions specified by the court;” So, it means the court would have given a certain directive.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I believe the import of ‘empower' is just to direct, authorise or, maybe, request the Special Prosecutor to take certain steps. Mr Speaker, I want to believe that the draftpersons took into consideration the provisions of clause 4, which provides that, “In the performance of its functions, the Special Prosecutor shall not be subject to a direction or control of any person or authority”. So, perhaps, they wanted to shy away from the use of the word ‘direct' or ‘authorise'. But I think in the context, ‘direct' is useful or if you like, even ‘request'. “Request” the Special Prosecutor to take possession of the — the import is the same. “Authorise” is also all right. Mr Speaker, in the circumstance, once we agree to the principle to use either ‘authorise' or ‘direct' or any one of them, we can leave it to the draft person.

Speaker
Alhaji Pelpuo

Mr Speaker, if you read the clause 68(1), it is an application by the Special Prosecutor. And the court, upon the reception of the application, is empowering him. We are not authorising him; he has applied and you are responding by giving him an authority. So, if you now say that I am authorising you — I think the best word should just be ‘empower' or just say to approve his application.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

It would not be the same.

Speaker
Alhaji Pelpuo

It looks non-legal when you talk about “approve”. But indeed, Mr Speaker, to say that you are authorising, him, does not show that I have applied and you approving —

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Please, look at clause 68(1). In the whole of clause 68(1), you would see (a) says ‘direct', (b) says ‘empower', (c) says ‘order', (d) says ‘empower' and (e) says ‘order'. Why do we not use one term for all? I hear the Hon Member for Wa West saying “No”.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

But Hon Member, you are aware that “authority” and “power” are not the same thing. You can have power without authority and you may not have power but you would have authority. Authority deals with influence. You can have the power but you do not have influence. Yes, Hon Chairman of Committee?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, the directions of the court are in the form of orders. The court either directs or orders: “I hereby order you to do so, so, and so; I hereby direct you to do so, so, and so”. So, Mr Speaker, we would wish that we delete ‘empower', ‘order' and insert the word ‘direct' so that ‘direct' would control the rest of the paragraphs. So, if I may suggest a new rendition —

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Chairman of Committee, that was the guidance I gave earlier to make it elegant and it generated another round of debate. But I agree with you, so give us the new rendition.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, “Where a confiscation order or a pecuniary penalty order is made, not discharged and not subject to an appeal, the court shall, on an application by the Special Prosecutor, direct that; (a)…”

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

You have added ‘that' and when you add ‘that', you need to make some amendments in the sublauses (b), (c) and the rest. But if you leave it at “direct”, then, it would flow through. But when you add ‘that', it would not sync well with the rest.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I would want to seek your leave to delete the word “that” and leave the word “direct”.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, I would put the Question and the Question is that, clause 68(1) be further amended as follows: (a)delete “direct”; (b)delete “empower”; (c)delete “order”; (d)delete “empower” and (e) delete “order”, insert “at clause 68(1), line 3, after “prosecutor direct”. So, the new rendition would be: “Where a confiscation order or pecuniary penalty order is made, not discharged and not subject to an appeal, the court shall, on an application by the Special Prosecutor, direct (a) the Special Prosecutor to manage the property; (b) the Special Prosecutor to take possession of the realisable property subject to the conditions specified by the court; (c) a person who has possession of the realisable property to surrender possession of the property to the Special Prosecutor; (d) the Special Prosecutor to dispose of the realisable property in the manner as directed by the court; or (e) a person who holds an interest in the property to make payment to the Special Prosecutor in respect of a beneficial interest held by the respondent or the recipient of a gift specified in this Act as the Court shall direct. Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 68 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 69 -- Utilisation of proceeds of realisable property..

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 69, add the following new subclause: “(2) The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall pay thirty per cent of the realised amount allocated to the Office to the Attorney-General for the benefit of the Prosecutions Division of the Attorney-General's Department.” Mr Speaker, I would want to make this proposal based on experience. First of all, the definition of a “relevant institution” may not at all times include the Attorney-General's Department. Mr Speaker, in my experience as the Hon Deputy Attorney-General and Deputy Minister for Justice for the last four years, I used to sign lots of certificates of moneys to so-called money institutions while the Attorney-General's Department, especially, the Prosecution Division suffered and lacked resources. So, I thought that this could be a proper way to share some of the benefits which accrue to the Special Prosecutor with the Prosecution's Division, so that, at least, they could have some resources to do their work.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

In other words, the whole money -- 100 per cent would be utilised between the three Agencies. This is because 40 per cent would be used to defray expenses of the office and 30 per cent would go to the beneficiary institutions, and then 30 per cent would go to the Attorney-General's Department.

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Mr Speaker, that was not my proposal. Maybe, I did not convey the sense.

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, it is not from your proposal, but when you add it to what we already have in clause 69 --

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Mr Speaker, I am not supposed to challenge your authority, but I believe your mathematics is suspicious. [Laughter.] Mr Speaker, I apologise profusely and I withdraw my statement. Mr Speaker, what I proposed was that out of the amount which has been allocated to the Special Prosecutor, 30 per cent should be given to the Attorney- General's Department, but it is not the 30 per cent of the 100 per cent of the realised amount. It is the 30 per cent of the 40 per cent which would be the amount that the Special Prosecutor would take as its share.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member for Bolgatanga East, can you read clause 69(1)?

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Mr Speaker, clause 69(1) says: “The court shall direct that forty percent of the amount realised be paid to the Office to be applied to defray the expenses of the Office”.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, which office is that?

Speaker
Dr Ayine

Mr Speaker, that is the Office of the Special Prosecutor. Mr Speaker, what I proposed was that for example, if the 40 per cent was GH¢400,000, then 30 per cent of the GH¢400,000 should be given to the Attorney-General's Department to help them do their work.

Speaker
Mr Chireh

Mr Speaker, the Hon Member for Bolgatanga East has a point, but that is not what he should have said. In clause 69(1), we should say that 30 per cent should be given to the Office of the Special Prosecutor and 10 per cent to the Attorney-General's Department so that it would be straight. If we would want to take what would be given to the Special Prosecutor, it would bring conflict between the Special Prosecutor and the boss, the Attorney-General's Department So, we should say that 10 per cent should go to the Attorney-General's Department and then 30 per cent would go to the Special Prosecutor. Mr Speaker, this is what I would propose to support the Hon Ayine's argument.

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, you would have to re-look at your proposed amendment. Yes, Hon Mahama Ayarigah?

Speaker
Mr Ayariga

Mr Speaker, on a lighter note, I told Hon Chireh and Hon Ayine that they thought they would catch somebody and make money to be shared. [Laughter.] Mr Speaker, if we look at clause 69, subclause (3), we have to drop the word “and” in line 2, before “pay” so that it would read: “The Special Prosecutor shall, after payment is made under subsection (2), pay the rest into the Conso- lidated Fund.”

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, let us finish with his proposed amendment first because your proposed amendment talks about the realised amount. “The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall pay thirty per cent of the realised amount to the Attorney-General for the benefit of the Prosecution's Division of the Attorney-General's Department” - and you went to “allocated to the Office” — Already, in clause 69(1), we are aware of that amount. This is because it is stated there that 40 per cent of the amount realised should be paid to the office to be applied to defray the expenses of the office. And so when you used the term, “realised amount” again, it gave the impression that you are referring to that total amount, and that is why I made my earlier point which you doubted my mathematics.

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

Mr Speaker, first of all, when we examine clause 69, the headnote itself is not guiding us enough. Are we talking about the sharing of the proceeds or the utilisation of the proceeds? This is because when we say “utilisation of proceeds” — I will come to the arithmetic and support your position though. And so the headnote itself is misleading. We are talking of sharing of proceeds of realisable property. Mr Speaker, there is 40 per cent at clause 69(1) as you referred to. There is 30 per cent in clause 69(2) and that gives 70 per cent. Then clause 69(3) is the outstanding 30 per cent which makes it the 100 per cent. And so you are right with your assumption. But the former Deputy Attorney- General and Deputy Minister for Justice is saying that, there is a Siberia of the Director of Prosecution or the Criminal Department of the Attorney-General. They do not have funds, and sometimes, they are in difficulty. And so, the suggestion Hon Yieleh Chireh made is that, instead of giving all the 40 per cent to the Office of the Special Prosecutor to defray his expenses, let us allocate 10 per cent of it to the Attorney- General's Criminal Division under Special Prosecution. And so we would still have the 49 per cent, except that we would now provide a provision that, 10 per cent of the 30 per cent would go to the Attorney-General's Department. Mr Speaker, it is true. Apart from the Registrar General's Department, the Attorney-General's Department -- apart from donor funding, hardly comes across any resources for purpose of running their offices. Therefore, clause 69, subclauses (1), (2) and (3) anticipate a 100 per cent sharing, part of which would go into the Consolidated Fund. But we are saying that before it gets to the Consolidated Fund, of the 40 per cent, 10 per cent — I am sure the draftpersons would be able to improve it, and this is to the benefit of their own office. And so the principle would be — The court would direct 40 per cent; 30 per cent to the Office of the Special Prosecutor, 10 per cent to the Attorney-General —

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, I seem to get the sense of the House. We have to first look at clause 69 subclause (3). Hon Chairman, are we together? Clause 69 subclause (3) says: “The Special Prosecutor shall, after payment is made under subsection (2), pay the rest into the Conso- lidated Fund.” And not “and pay”, but “pay”. And so you have to move, an amendment to delete “and” from clause 69, subclause (3), line 2, before we go to the new subclause that is being proposed by Hon Dr Dominic Ayine.

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 69, subclause (3), line 2, after “subsection (2)”, delete “and”. The new rendition would then read: “The Special Prosecutor shall, after payment is made under subsection (2), pay the rest into the Conso- lidated Fund.”

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, I will put the Question — Mr Afenyo-Markin — rose —

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, are you against the deletion of “and”?

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, but we are dealing with subclause (3), so let us finish with that.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

What do your propose to do in subclause (2)? Let us listen to you.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I believe we have to handle the first proposed amendment before —

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

Mr Speaker, fortunately, the Hon Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is here with us. Clause 69 deals with sharing of proceeds and not utilisation. Mr Speaker, if you read clause 69 (1), the focus and emphasis is on the Office. It says, and with your permission, I quote: “the court shall direct the Office of the Special Prosecutor”. Clause 69 (2) is for other institutions. Who are those institutions and do they deserve the allocation we are making for them? I do not believe so. So, if we have policy approval, we should change the “40” per cent in clause 69 (1) and change “30” to “30” per cent in 69 (2). That would be 50 per cent. The other 20 per cent should go to the Consolidated Fund. The “twenty” per cent of clause 69 (2) must be dedicated to the Prosecuting Department of the Attorney-General.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I associate myself with the proposal submitted by the Hon Minority Leader. Ultimately, the State is the body that should stand to benefit most greatly from these allocations. This is because the proceeds of corruption are otherwise due to the State and some people have appropriated it. We are tracing and tracking them to retrieve the resource and should the State not benefit? Mr Speaker, 50 per cent allocation is the least that can come to the State. So, I agree that we limit the allocation in clause 69 (1) to 30 per cent: 20 per cent to the Office of the Special Prosecutor, 10 per cent to the Attorney-General and then not more than 20 per cent to the relevant institutions and even persons. This is because this whole process of investigation perhaps, might have been occasioned by a whistle-blower. Mr Speaker, as the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice said, witnesses would be protected to ensure that they are successful in the investigation and prosecution of this matter. So, we need some amount to be set aside by way of compensating them. Therefore, it cannot be for institutions alone. I believe 20 per cent should suffice for the relevant institutions and persons who would have facilitated this. So, I believe that at least 50 per cent should go to the Consolidated Fund.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, let us start with clause 69 (1). The Question is that in 69 (1), we delete the word “forty” per cent in line 1 and insert “thirty”. So, clause 69 (1) would now read;

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, we are saying that 20 per cent should go to the Office of the Special Prosecutor and 10 per cent to the Attorney-General.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

No; the proposal the Hon Minority Leader made was “thirty” per cent. If the Hon Majority Leader is further amending it from “thirty” per cent to “twenty” per cent, you should say so. [Pause.] Hon Members, your experience here has shown that even though we are the custodians of the purse, when it comes to releases of our own budget from the Ministry of Finance, it is a big challenge. So, we try to prevent this with respect to the funding of the Office of the Special Prosecutor. That is the reason they would want to make some provision for that office to strengthen it to be able to work if we really want to fight corruption. So, I do not think there should be any problem with it -- “thirty” per cent would not be too much.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I have heard your proposed amendment, Mr Afenyo-Markin. Hon Chairman of the Committee, what do you say to that?

Speaker
Mr Banda

Mr Speaker, in the first place, we are not in agreement with his proposed amendment. This is because we would want the Office of the Special Prosecutor to have a specific percentage of the amount realised to be paid into the account of the Office. You would realise that under clause 21 of the Bill -- Funds of the Office, one of the sources is moneys approved by Parliament. The second source is grants approved by the Hon Minister and the third one is Internally Generated Funds (IGFS). Mr Speaker, so, it cannot be that after the office has investigated and successfully prosecuted the case and something has been realised, it is being argued that it should rather be made to defray the expenses incurred in the course of the investigation and prosecution. We do not want that rendition to stay, we want a specific percentage to be allocated to the office. Therefore, I submit that instead of the 40 per cent, we propose that 30 per cent be allocated to the office and the 10 per cent to the office of the Attorney- General; 10 per cent to institutions and persons of relevance and the rest which is 50 per cent should be paid into the Consolidated Fund. After all, the moneys belong to the State. -- [Interruption] --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, clause 69 (1), line 1, delete “forty” and insert “thirty”. The clause would now read: “The court shall direct that thirty percent of the amount realised be paid to the Office to be applied to defray the expenses of the Office”. Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, when we downgraded the percentage there, what we meant was that the 10 per cent should be the 10 per cent of the total amount realised. That is why we said that ultimately, we should have 50 per cent of the total amount paid into the Consolidated Fund.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, it is because of the other new clause to be added. So, the new clause would also take 10 per cent.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

So, it is 10 per cent of the total and not the remaining amount.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

You did not propose any amendment to the other line, so I am following your proposals.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, in that case --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I do not propose amendments.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

But you only guide.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, I only guide.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, we are saying that: “The Court shall direct the Special Prosecutor to pay ten percent of the amount realised for the benefit of an institution or person of relevance to the action after full satisfaction of payment required under subsection (1).”

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

So, I would take that again. Clause 69 (2), line (1); delete “thirty” and insert “ten”. Line 2, delete “remaining” and insert after ‘amount', “realised to”. After “of”, delete “an” and insert “persons or” and then add ‘s' to “institution”. So, the new rendition is as follows: “The Court shall direct the Special Prosecutor to pay ten percent of the amount realised to the benefit of persons or institutions of relevance to the action after full satisfaction of payment required under subsection (1).” Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Second Depuy Speaker

Clause 69 (3), line (2), after “subsection (2)”, delete “and”. So, the new rendition is: “The Special Prosecutor shall, after payment is made under subsection (2), pay the rest into the Consolidated Fund.” But there is a new subclause which we have not added. I do not know the number it would take.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, clause 69 (3), include, subsection (1). So, it would read: “The Special Prosecutor shall, after payment is made under subsections (1) and (2), pay the rest into the Consolidated Fund.”

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Well, what about the new subclause? Let us take the new subclause first and then make it subsections (1), (2) and (3). I think that would be better.

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

Mr Speaker, the new subclause as was rightly read by the Hon Chairman of the Committee should be 10 per cent dedicated to the Prosecution Department of the Office of the Attorney- General.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

So, we would take the new subclause. The new subclause is further amended as follows, “line 1”, delete “30” and insert “10”. Line 2, delete “realised”. The new subclause would now read: “The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall pay 10 per cent of the amount . . .”

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

Mr Speaker, the word “realised” should not be deleted because that is what we would get out of that purpose.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

The word “realised” is the total, but part of it has already been taken. Are you talking about 10 per cent of the total?

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

Mr Speaker, yes, I believe it is 10 per cent of the 100 per cent. [Pause.]

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, the 10 per cent refers to 10 per cent of the 100. I will put the Question. Hon Members, we are adding a new subclause to read as follows: “The Office of the Special Prose- cutor shall pay 10 per cent of …” So, the rendition should be “amount realised” and not “realised amount”. So, the new subclause would read”: “The Office of the Special Prosecutor shall pay 10 per cent of the amount realised to the office of the Attorney-General for the benefit of the prosecution division …” Should we delete the “prosecution division”? Hon Members, I would take that again. “The Office of the Special Prose- cutor shall pay 10 per cent of the amount realised to the Office of the Attorney-General.”

Speaker
Ms Laadi A. Ayamba

Mr Speaker, I am not a lawyer but the mathematics is what I do not get. This is because clause 69 (1) already states that the court shall direct that 30 per cent of the amount realised be paid to the office to be applied to defray the expenses of the office. Then we have come back to say that 10 per cent of the amount realised. Mr Speaker, 30 per cent has already been taken from the amount realised so it is the remaining amount. How do we then have the said amount again? I do not get the mathematics of it.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I do not want you to fall into the same trap. All the percentages are coming from the amount realised; 10 per cent of the amount realised. That is what they are saying. Hon Inusah Fuseini?

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

Mr Speaker, as has earlier been said by the Hon Member for Pusiga, Hon Laadi Ayamba -- that is not the intendment of the clause. We could get it from the provisions in the clause. In taking the amendments into consideration, clause 69 (1) says and I beg to quote: “the Court shall direct that thirty per cent of the amount realised be paid to the Office to defray expenses of that Office.” Mr Speaker, 30 per cent of the total amount. Clause 69 (2) says that and I beg to quote: “The Court shall direct the Special Prosecutor to pay thirty per cent of the remaining amount.”

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

They have deleted “remaining.”

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Speaker
Alhaji Fuseini

The mathematics here is that 30 per cent of the 70 -- Mr Speaker, I understand that the whole idea has changed, subsequent to an amendment.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

When the Speaker attempted to guide the House they said that my mathematics was a suspect. I did very well in mathematics at the Ordinary Level and I passed my legal accountancy. So, whose mathematics is suspect now? Yes, Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I thought that we had long gone past the issues that are being brought back to the front. We have gone past that stage and I thought that the Question had been put already.

Speaker
Mr Speaker, if one is to talk about this

10 per cent or 30 per cent of the total. Let us assume that we realised GH¢100 million then 30 per cent is US¢30 million. Now, if we say that 30 per cent of the remaining

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, please, let us have order in the House.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, 30 per cent to the Office of the Special Prosecutor from, for instance, GH¢100 million that is realised would be 30 million. Now, if we say that 30 per cent of the remaining, then it would not be GH¢30 million again, it would be 30 per cent of 70 per cent which would translate to GH¢21 million. Now, we are saying that by restricting ourselves to the 30 per cent and considering the fact that this is State funds that perhaps might have been misapplied or misappropriated by somebody, which we have now been able to retrieve, then that amount should profit the State. Let us assume that the amount was meant for the development of the Northern Region and somebody pockets it. Now, we are able to retrieve it and then we say that, the State should not benefit from it and in particular, the Northern Region that was denied the use of that funds should not benefit from it? It should benefit. Mr Speaker, so, at least 50 per cent of what is retrieved should go to the Consolidated Fund. Further to that, if we say that 10 per cent of the total amount should go to the Attorney-General's Department, it means that, now, we have 40 per cent altogether. Then the remaining 10 per cent would go to the persons in other institutions that might have helped the Special Prosecutor to trace, track and conduct a successful prosecution of the case, so, that, we would have 50 per cent altogether allocated to these institutions and persons. The remaining 50 per cent is paid to the Consolidated Fund. Mr Speaker, that is what we are saying. So, Mr Speaker, I do not think we should go back. Put the Question and then we would make progress.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, I would definitely not go back. I would put the Question on the new subclause again. The new rendition of the new subclause reads as follows: “The Court shall direct the Special Prosecutor to pay 10 per cent of the amount realised to the Office of the Attorney-General.” Question put and amendment agreed to.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Clause 69 (3) would now read as follows: “(3) The Special Prosecutor shall, after payment is made under subsections (1), (2) and (3), pay the rest into the Consolidated Fund.” Question put and amendment agreed to. Clause 69 as amended ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 70 and 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 72 -- Plea bargaining.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Chairman of the Committee, clause 72?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Sorry, Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, with respect, I wish to show appreciation to my Hon Colleagues for what we have done on the Office of the Special Prosecutor Bill, 2017 today. I would plead that we bring the Consideration Stage to an end with respect to the Office of the Special Prosecutor Bill, 2017 and continue tomorrow. Mr Speaker, I would want us to go to the item numbered 4 on the Order Paper.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, we would adjourn further consideration of the Office of the Special Prosecutor Bill, 2017 to tomorrow. Yes, Hon Member?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

We could go to item numbered 4 on the Order Paper. It is just a presentation of a Paper.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Item numbered 4 on page 2 of the Order Paper. Hon Chairman of the Committee?

PAPERS

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, we could now go to item numbered 5 on the Order Paper. Mr Speaker, item numbered 5 was laid last week. What we would do in item 5 has nothing to do with item 4.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Item numbered 5, Motion. Hon Chairman of the Committee?

MOTIONS

Speaker
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah)

Mr Speaker, I beg to move, that this Honourable House adopts the Report of the Finance Committee on the request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, ECOWAS Levy, and other approved imposts including EXIM Levy, Special Import Levy and Inspection Fees as assessed amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of six million, sixty-eight thousand, nine hundred and thirty-three euros (€6,068,933.00) on imported construction materials and equipment in respect of the upgrade and major rehabilitation of the Tamale Teaching Hospital -- Phase II by VAMED Engineering International BV. Mr Speaker, in so doing, I beg to present the Committee's Report. Introduction The request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, ECOWAS Levy, and

Speaker
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah)

The Committee met with the Deputy Minister for Finance, Hon Kwaku Kwarteng and a technical team from the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Health to consider the Request. Background Teaching Hospitals are required to be the centres of excellence and complex care in the hierarchy of healthcare in the country. Its core function is to provide healthcare, medical research and training of health workers at pre-service, post graduate, post-basic and in-service levels. Teaching hospitals also offer referral and specialised care to primary and secondary curative care services at all levels within its catchment area. Health service delivery constitutes the mainstream function of the teaching hospital, and it spans the delivery of primary and secondary curative care services through the general out-patient department and polyclinic structure and systems. The mandate of teaching hospitals to offer major clinical training and research work adds another dimension to its nature of requirement in terms of space, which would justify such other adjunct facilities such as demonstration rooms, mini laborateries for side ward procedures, day rooms for patients, and teaching space around patient beds in order to secure ease of movement and for effective teaching, while not compromising on comfort. It is due to these important roles teaching hospitals play that Government has been committed to support sufficiently all teaching hospitals in the country to offer referral and specialised care to primary and secondary health services at all levels. The Tamale Teaching Hospital is one of the teaching hospitals in the country. It is also strategically placed and serves over half of the land mass of Ghana and four of the ten regions. The hospital also serves as the only referral center for tertiary health care in the northern sector and also is a major recipient of patients on the trans- ECOWAS trade route. Unfortunately, the hospital is in a deplorable condition and unable to fulfil its core function. If the hospital is to play its vital role, given its location, then there would be the need for a major rehabilitation of the hospital. It is in line with Government's policy that the Government sought and Parliament approved a number of Loan Agreements to finance the upgrade and major rehabilitation of the Tamale Teaching Hospital. To this end, the project was broken down into two phases. In the first phase, the existing hospital was rehabilitated and reconstructed into a fully functioning 400- bed tertiary hospital with teaching facilities. It also included facilities for a psychiatric unit and an obstetric unit. phase one has been completed. Phase two is expected to increase the capacity of the hospital with an additional 400 beds. In order to implement phase two, Parliament approved the Loan Agreement for €47, 977, 325 between the Republic of Ghana and ABN AMRO Bank NV of the Netherlands in 2012. As part of the conditions precedent to the loan, the project is to be waived of import duty, import VAT, ECOWAS levy and other approved imposts including EXIM levy, Special Import Levy and inspection fees. The project is currently underway. However, in order not to stall the project and avoid possible delays, there is the need to request Parliament for a tax waiver for the project. It is this request that is currently before the House for approval. Request The request is for a tax waiver amounting to six million, sixty-eight thousand, nine hundred and thirty-three Euros (€6,068,933.00) for the importation of construction materials and equipment for the project. Duration of the Project The project is to be implemented over a period of two years. Observations Scope of the Project The technical team informed the Committee that the scope of the project entails the following; Construction of new 4-storey Accident and Emergency Building; Four-storey new building including faculty offices; Four-storey building including 155 bed obstetrics and gynaecology; Four-storey building including 200 bed children ward and play rooms; New mortuary building for 50 bodies with pathologists offices; Bulk storage; Medical equipment; Demolishing of current mortuary and existing power station building; Project management/supervision cost; Consultancy fees for supervision; Staff housing of a mixture of 3- bedrooms and 2-bedrooms. Benefits of the project Responding to the benefits of the project, the technical team indicated that the project, when completed would ensure quality healthcare for the growing population in the northern sector of the country. It would also provide new clinical services, specialties that are required to serve the growing health needs of the population. The northern sector also records unacceptable high infant mortality rates. There is, therefore the need to expand peadiatric services in the sector. These services would be expanded by the Tamale Teaching Hospital when the project is completed to address the challenges. Further, the intake into the University for Development Studies (UDS) School of Medicine and Health Sciences currently stands at 50 students per year. This intake requires a teaching hospital with a minimum of 650 bed capacity as required by the Medical and Dental Council, the professional accreditation body. The project, when completed, would enable the UDS School of Medicine and Health Sciences meet the minimum standard required for the institution to train doctors. The technical team also indicated that the location of the hospital is strategic to take advantage of being a hub for medical tourism in the sub-region, with road access to neighbouring countries of Burkina Faso, Togo, La Cote D'Ivoire, Mali, Niger and Nigeria . Status of the project In response to the current status of the project, the Committee was informed that the project is 50 per cent complete. The technical team acknowledged that the project was, however, behind schedule; but explained that the delay was due to the tax exemption issues. Temporal Permits for clearing goods The Deputy Minister noted that in order to ensure the project is not overly delayed, as a result of delays in obtaining tax waivers from Parliament, the Ministry of Finance issued temporal permits to enable the clearance of some items of ongoing projects. The Committee was informed that the Tamale Teaching Hospital project benefited from these temporal permits to mitigate the delays in obtaining tax waivers from Parliament. So far, total temporal permits of Gh¢9,832,340.31 was issued to temporarily waive import duty to enable the contractor clear some equipment for the project. This temporal exemption has been included as part of the request currently before Parliament for approval. Tax exemptions in Agreements The Committee enquired what Government was doing to address issues relating to tax exemption. The Deputy Minister indicated that Government has already entered into a number of loan agreements with tax exemption provisions. These agreements have to be complied with. Going forward, Government intends to now negotiate as much as possible, new agreements with minimal tax exemption clauses. The Ministry is also reviewing the tax exemption process.

Speaker
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah)

Conclusion Considering the benefits the health sector stands to gain from undertaking this project and the immense socio- economic benefits to be derived from the project, the Committee is of the view that the request is in the right direction. The Committee, therefore, recommends to the House the adoption of its Report and approve the request for waiver of Import Duties, Import VAT, ECOWAS Levy, and other approved imposts including EXIM Levy, Special Import Levy and Inspection Fees as assessed, amounting to the Ghana cedi equivalent of six million, sixty-eight thousand, nine hundred and thirty-three euros ($US 6,068,933.00) on imported construction materials and equipment in respect of the upgrade and major rehabilitation of the Tamale Teaching Hospital, Phase II by VAMED Engineering International BV in accordance with article 174 (2) of the Constitution. Respectfully submitted. SPACE FOR TABLE, PAGE 6, 7.00 PM

Speaker
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah)

Speaker
Dr Assibey-Yeboah

Mr Speaker, specifically, what is stated in the Report and what I read was that, the team explained that the project was behind schedule; but the delay was due to tax exemption issues.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

You did not read; you summarised. I quoted you, and I would want it to be clarified. It has not yet been seconded. Mr Benjamin K.Kpodo --[Interruption.] -- I am now going to do it.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

He said he would not second the Motion.

Speaker
Mr Kpodo

No, I did not say so.

Speaker
Mr Benjamin K. Kpodo (NDC -- Ho Central)

Mr Speaker, I rise to second the Motion moved by the Hon Chairman of the Committee. It is an ongoing project, and we had a long discussion on how we would make it progress. At the meeting with the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance, we went into the details and got the schedules for the exemption sought for by VAMED Company to be able to bring in equipment for the work to progress. So Mr Speaker, we would call upon Hon Members of the House to approve the request. We were informed that the Government had backtracked a little about its policies of asking the company to pay the taxes upfront before coming for refund. So, in that regard, there was a change in policy from what the previous Government did. Mr Speaker, to be very clear on this, the Government of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) said that they would make the importer pay the taxes upfront and later come for the refund of the -- [Uproar] -- Mr Speaker, this was amply stated in the Budget Statement. [Interruption.] Later on, at the meeting of the Finance Committee, we were informed that there was a change in policy. That satisfied us; they have approved whatever we did in the past. On that note, we would call on Hon Members of this House to approve the request for the tax waiver of €6,068,933.00 as tax exemption to be granted to VAMED Engineering International BV. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Question proposed.

Speaker
Some Hon Members

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation?

Speaker
Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation (Dr Anthony Akoto Osei)(MP)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I would want to urge all Hon Members of this House to approve this Motion. Mr Speaker, you correctly stated that the Hon Chairman said the delay was because of Parliament. I agree with you. I would want to use this opportunity to urge all Hon Ministers of Finance, particularly, the previous Hon Ministers of Finance -- [Interruption].

Speaker
Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation (Dr Anthony Akoto Osei)(MP)

Mr Speaker, on page 2 of the Committee's Report, with your permission, I beg to quote: “Phase two is expected to increase the capacity of the hospital with an additional 400 beds. In order to implement Phase two, Parliament approved the Loan Agreement for €47,977,325.00 between the Republic of Ghana and ABN AMRO Bank NV of the Netherlands in 2012.” Mr Speaker, who was in Government in 2012? We are in 2017; five years later.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Order! Hon Minister, you talked about the year 2012.

Speaker
Dr A. A. Osei

Mr Speaker, would you want to take part in the debate? [Laughter.]

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

I am sure you can read my lips --[Laughter.]--So, be advised accordingly.

Speaker
Dr A. A. Osei

Mr Speaker, I can read your lips. I just quoted the Committee's Report. With your permission, I would quote again; the loan was approved in 2012. It is a fact. I would move on. Mr Speaker, the hospital is very important to the nation. Five years down the line -- it is dear to the heart of the former Hon Deputy Northern Regional Minister. He knows that the completion would expedite -- He has complained that the Ministry should bring the tax waiver immediately, and we have ceded to his request. The hospital is only 50 per cent complete. We would want to complete it quickly, so that the object of the loan could be achieved. It is a very important development, not only for Tamale, but for the whole country. Mr Speaker, relatively speaking, the amount requested is €6 million, out of a total loan of €47 million. That is one of the best that we have. Mr Speaker, it is important to know that the Ministry has engaged in what is called, “temporary permits” which is not known in our Constitution. So, we are trying to rectify this practice, so that we can move forward with the completion of the project in the constituency of the Hon Member of Parliament, who is also the Hon Minority Leader. I am sure he is in favour of it. I would want to urge all Hon Members; whether one is from Tamale, Old Tafo or the Volta Region, this is for the sake of Ghana. I thank you, Mr Speaker.

Speaker
Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central)

Mr Speaker, I believe it would be appropriate for us to consider the tax waiver for the continuation of work at the Tamale Teaching Hospital. Mr Speaker, the hospital underwent serious expansion during the time of Prof J. E. A. Mills for the phase 1. The phase 2

Speaker
Alhaji Inusah A. B. Fuseini (NDC -- Tamale Central)

Speaker
Dr Kwabena Twum-Nuamah (NPP -- Berekum East)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion on the floor. Mr Speaker, the Tamale Teaching Hospital, without doubt, is a very strategically placed health institution in the country. Just like the previous Hon Member who spoke indicated, it serves the people of northern Ghana, the Brong Ahafo Region, and even our brothers and sisters from the sahelian region. Mr Speaker, one of the main areas that the phase 2 is going to cover is the maternity block in the teaching hospital. Mr Speaker, as the Hon Chairman of the Committee on Health, I led your Committee to visit the hospital recently, the current maternity block, to say the least, is an eyesore. If you look at the heat and the stench alone in the facility -- [Interruption]-- it is unfortunate that we have had to wait all this long --

Speaker
Dr A. A. Osei

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, the Hon Minister for Monitoring and Evaluation is on his feet.

Speaker
Dr A. A. Osei

Mr Speaker, I am not a medical doctor, so, I just need an explanation; if one can feel the stench. Maybe, it is a medical term. I just wanted some explanation. I am not a medical doctor. Could one see the heat?

Speaker
Dr Twum-Nuamah

Mr Speaker, the patients were all sweating. You could see the sweat, and it is a sign of heat in the facility.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member, move on.

Speaker
Dr Twum-Nuamah

Mr Speaker, in fact, we all felt sorry for the patients and even the staff who work there. It is unfortunate that this project has had to wait for this long, but we always say it is better late than never. So, I entreat present Hon Ministers to ensure that such strategic projects are not made to delay unduly because, the country needs them as early as possible. I will use this to urge the House to approve this facility because it would serve a very important purpose for the people of this country. Thank you for the opportunity.

Speaker
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu)

Mr Speaker, I would want to thank you for the opportunity to contribute to the Motion on the request for waiver of import duties, import VAT, ECOWAS levy and other approved -- Mr Speaker, we should even correct the Report. On the first page of the Report, we see “imposts”. Mr Speaker, I say that for the record, watch the first page, the

Speaker
Minority Leader (Mr Haruna Iddrisu)

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, do you intend to add your voice to the debate?

Speaker
Majority Leader ( Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu)

Mr Speaker, the salient issues have been raised. I support the adoption of the Report and the approval of the tax waiver. Mr Speaker, as we have said and indeed noted, once a loan facility is approved, it should not take too long for waivers to come to Parliament for approval. But all too often, it takes quite a long time before they are brought here. In the meantime, because the materials and equipment would have to be imported, they are imported into the country and the Ministry then issues some temporary permits for them to clear the items. Mr Speaker, that certainly cannot be right. We should urge the responsible ministries to be up and doing to come to Parliament, as early as possible, to ensure that we do the right thing.

Speaker
Majority Leader ( Mr Osei Kyei- Mensah-Bonsu)

Mr Speaker, the hospital would serve, and indeed, serves close to 45 per cent of the entire landmark of the country. That is why it is much more important that we facilitate the construction of the phase two of the project. Mr Speaker, it would not only treat patients, it would facilitate teaching and research of the universities that are close to the place. Mr Speaker, but the issue we have raised whenever we deal with these tax exemptions is; who follows what becomes of equipment once the project is completed? Oftentimes, they are disposed of but we should ensure that whoever eventually benefits, should pay the relevant tax. Otherwise, the equipment would be used for the purpose for which it was imported, and then those who acquire such properties after its usage would not pay taxes. Mr Speaker, having said that, I would want to end. We certainly need this facility. After the provision of the facilities, we are poor in maintaining and servicing the facilities. We finish constructing the hospitals, but three or four years after the construction, they fall into the state of disrepair. Stadia that we built after three or four years, maintaining them becomes difficult. So, perhaps, we should come to some determination on the management of these facilities to ensure that we continue to profit from the investments that we make into them. Mr Speaker, I thank you.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, before I put the Question, I cannot resist the temptation to comment on one issue. I really always feel sad,

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, we would take item numbered 6 on the Order Paper -- Resolution. Where is the Hon Minister?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, may I seek permission for one of the Hon Deputy Ministers for Finance to move for the adoption of the Resolution. Mr Speaker, the Hon Minister is still caught up in a very critical meeting, but the Hon Deputy Ministers are here with us.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, which of the Hon Deputy Ministers?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, Hon Kwaku Kwarteng.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, I have not seen Hon Kwaku Kwarteng. [Interruption] -- Oh, you just surfaced.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, he has been here for quite a while.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

The time I identified Hon Abena Osei-Asare, I did not see him -- [Interruption] -- Oh, he was hiding over there. Hon Minority Leader, what do you say to the request.

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

Mr Speaker, there is no objection. I am sure that the Hon Deputy Minister for Finance could proceed to move the Resolution on behalf of the Hon Minister for Finance. Mr Speaker, we are reasonable -- we know that the Hon Minister for Finance is busy preparing the Budget Statement for Wednesday, 15th November, 2017, so we can understand why he would need someone to stand in. Mr Speaker, the application was made by the Hon Majority Leader on behalf of the Hon Minister for Finance. Mr Speaker, there is no objection.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Deputy Minister for Finance?

RESOLUTIONS

THIS HONOURABLE HOUSE IS

RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED TO

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Any seconder?

Speaker
Chairman of the Committee (Dr Mark Assibey-Yeboah)

Mr Speaker, I beg to second the Motion. Question put and Motion agreed to. Resolved accordingly.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I had really wanted to plead with the House to indulge us to take item numbered 8, but I could see from the demeanor of even the Chair that it would be a very tough call.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, item numbered 8, African Union Levy Bill, 2017 at the Consideration Stage.

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, thank you very much -- [Interruption] --

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Members, I am ready to go on.

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Minority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Iddrisu

Mr Speaker, the Dagombas have always cautioned that one does not ask -- anyway, it could be misconstrued, so let me leave it there. Mr Speaker, the Hon Majority Leader must have a sense to gauge the mood of the House, and he must appreciate the sacrifice of Hon Members, particularly, when it is a Monday, but we have come to work and done so diligently. Mr Speaker, it is only appropriate that the Hon Majority Leader is seen not seeking to attempt to blame you as not being ready. Mr Speaker, since when did the Hon Majority Leader learn the signs of demeanor? As I watch his demeanor, I could see that he wants an adjournment. [Laughter] -- Mr Speaker, since it is easy to assume, I would want to assume that the Hon Majority Leader, having watched his demeanor, would want an adjournment. Mr Speaker, I believe it is fair. Today is Monday, we have worked, and we would continue tomorrow. I am sure we could do justice to all these outstanding issues. Mr Speaker, I would persuade the Hon Majority Leader to move a Motion for adjournment, so that we could continue with the rest tomorrow. Mr Speaker, we are in your hands. Thank you.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Yes, Hon Majority Leader?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, I gauged the mood of the House, and I came before you in due supplication -- I made an application.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Majority Leader, was it in due supplication?

Speaker
Mr Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu

Mr Speaker, it was in due supplication. Now, the Hon Minority Leader got up after you have spoken -- unambiguously and to all intents and purposes, he does not believe in your own demonstrable prowess. Mr Speaker, you said we should go on, but the Hon Minority Leader said no. Mr Speaker, that is an affront to the Chair, unless you did not mean what you said. I have course to disbelieve that you did not mean what you said. [Laughter] -- Mr Speaker, let me leave it like that.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

As an Hon Speaker, I have no mouth to talk unless what is told to me by the House, so I would want to know your pleasure. Hon Members, do we take an adjournment or we should continue.

Speaker
Mr Frederick Opare-Ansah

rose

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Hon Member for Suhum?

Speaker
Mr Opare-Ansah

Mr Speaker, it is past 2.00 o'clock in the afternoon, so it lies within your powers to so put the Question without any Motion, and I am sure you would get the sense of the House. Thank you.

Speaker
Mr Second Deputy Speaker

Very well.

ADJOURNMENT

The House was adjourned at 7.40 p.m. till Tuesday, 14th November, 2017 at 10.00 a.m.