This video captures a parliamentary debate on Ghana's Anti-LGBTQ Bill, where members discuss the management and monitoring functions of the National Community Service Secretariat, the composition of the management board including representation from various security agencies, and the inclusion of gender balance provisions. The debate also addresses concerns about bail conditions and the scope of the bill, with members arguing whether the legislation should address both post-conviction sentencing and pre-conviction bail issues. The discussion highlights the importance of constitutional compliance, particularly regarding rights to legal representation and fair treatment under the law.
Installez notre extension pour rechercher instantanément dans n'importe quelle vidéo
Drama unfolds as Parliament passes controversial Anti-LGBTQ BillAjouté :
is to manage the manage all of these things that have been outlined from where you expanded the implementation of this act as in monitor the implementation of this act. If we take away the manage end and then leave I to be monitor the implementation of this act that for me would be accommodative but to say manage and monitor the management aspect of it for me has already been catered for by the other clauses but from the extension because as you rightly indicated the A is talking about implementation of community service which is a subset of many other functions.
of the secretariat and then the act and so it wouldn't be out of place to have a function to monitor the implementation of the entirety of the proficiency of the act. So I will propose that we rather delete the manage and and allow monitor the implementation of this act to stand I soon submit. Mr. Speaker >> very well the proposal is to delete the word manage but not to delete the entire eye. Yes, honorable Tim Fger.
>> Thank you honorable speaker. The essence of maintaining I as managed and monitored implementation of this act is very sound. Any attempt to delete it will veer away from the very important you know function of the secretariat which in the earlier submission by the speaker as you you rightly explained community service is just the alternative non-custodial sentencing that the judiciary may pass in respect of offenses that fall under the under this act. But there's a lot that goes into the implementation of this entire act which after coming into force of this act regulations will be required to be passed. So you cannot say that manage management should be taken aside for the functions to be restricted only to monitoring. We are expecting the secretariat to manage and monitor and so the two are very essential. Deleting one will fall short of the internment of the function. Thank you.
>> Because if you look at clause 29 of the bill, it talks about establishment of rehabilitation fund as a component of this particular act.
So that fund must also be managed.
They will not only monitor the fund but they will manage that fund too. So if you look at the bill in its entirety, you will realize that the use of the word manage is not misplaced.
>> Yes, let me hear.
>> There's there's >> our people say too much meat doesn't spoil the soup.
>> Too much meat doesn't spoil the soup.
to eat >> to eat too much meat doesn't spoil the soup.
members speak a language >> we can maintain the clause >> other than English that you will be compelled by our rules to translate it into English but he's speaking English he cannot translate into yes I put a question on entire clause three all those in favor of clause three as amended standing part of the deal Say I.
>> Those again say no. The eyes have it.
Clause three is ordered to stand part of the bill. Now clause four.
>> Establishment of the national community service management board.
>> Chairman of the committee.
>> Mr. Speaker, we have no proposed amendments.
>> It is for the consideration of the house. Yes. Honorable BMA.
>> Mr. Speaker, I have counted the members of the board. Any five?
>> Yeah, we are on five. We are not on five.
No, we are on four.
Very well. In the absence of any proposed amendment, I'll put a question on clause four. Those in favor say I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
Clause four is ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause five.
>> Composition of the management board.
>> Chairman of the committee.
>> Mr. Speaker, amendment proposed subclause one paragraph F sub paragraph V line one after controller general insert of the immigration service.
I mean this members the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the house is to cure ambiguity as to which controller general is being referred to. So the proposal is to add immigration service.
I'll put a question. All those in favor say I.
What the hell?
question on the proposed amendment.
Those in favor say I.
>> Those in favor say I. I.
>> Those against say no.
On on same clause. Very well. Very well.
I will resend my >> Thank you. Um, honorable speaker, I was just wondering whether perhaps a better rendition wouldn't be the controller general of the immigration service not below the rank of deputy controller general and then delete of the immigration service. It does seem a bit repetitive. It would appear to me that if you put immigration service in the initial part of the clause, it should cater for the deputy.
>> Well, we have to even look at the ranking. Sorry >> because the controller general the position is higher than deputy controller general.
Is that not so?
So why do you bring not below the rank of deputy controller general of immigration service? Honorable speaker, because it says a representative of in clause F, sub clause F, it says a representative of and then V says the controller general.
>> Yes. That is why it must be a representative of the controller general of immigration service.
>> Correct. So that you will not >> but my proposal is to maintain this new rendition but to remove the one after deputy controller general because >> no if you don't bring it in line one and line two it may create ambiguity because the deputy controller general to you are talking about deputy controller general of immigration service.
Yes, chairman. or we we have since amended those provisions so that if you if I were to take you to um clause 14 F, we now have the regional commander of the immigration service or a representative of the regional commander of the immigration service not below the rank.
>> Yes. that pretended >> that is in conformity with the amendment you are proposing here.
>> Yes.
>> You understand?
>> Because in clause 14 you mention the immigration service in clause one in line one and you mention it again in line two.
You are stating the full rank of the the person just for clarity. So that is why the current proposal that you are making is in order.
So I'll put a question as many as are in favor say I.
>> Those again say no. The eyes have it.
The proposed amendment by the chairman of the committee is ordered to stand part of the bill.
Yes. Chairman of the committee still on clause five.
>> Clause five. Amendment proposed sub clause.
>> Yes, >> the same clause 5 F V Roman numeral five. I think that's what we just dealt with.
>> So the last clause still the last u line >> of that sub clause.
>> Yes.
the nominated by the controller general.
We left that without the of immigration service.
>> Yes.
Yes. But that one is cured by saying the but we can add the immigration service to it.
>> The first one also has the controller general.
>> Yes.
>> First also has the controller general.
>> Yes. So we can add the immigration service to it.
Yes. So I will further a further amendment for clarity that they should also fully spell out the rank of the controller.
>> Uh I will I will direct the drafters to tidy this up for us.
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Um speaker I need your guidance because I'm still a student of this particular enterprise. Mr. speaker and V >> under >> the FV where we are.
>> Yes.
>> Yes. It says the controller of immigration not below the rank of a deputy controller of the immigration service but consistently when you look at the other security institutions representation you have C inspector general of police a rep not below the rank of assistant commissioner then you of police then you go to im prison service director general of prison service or a rep not below the rank of assistant director of immigration. So I don't understand why at the immigration.
>> So let's deal with let's deal with this.
That's why I said >> when we come there and you have a proposal then you can make the proposal.
>> Very well. That's why I said I needed your guidance.
>> A commissioner of police simplicity is a rank.
>> Yes. So let's deal with this. I'm directing the drafters to ty it up for us and I'll put a question subject to the drafters helping us in this regard.
So the question is as many as are in favor say I. I.
>> Those against say no. Honor members the eyes have it. The proposed amendment is ordered to stand part of the bill subject to the draft tidying it up for us. Yes. Chairman of the committee your last amendment to clause five. No >> no last one.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Last but one.
>> So amendment proposed sub clause one are the following new paragraph after paragraph G.
A representative of traditional authorities nominated by the National House of Chiefs.
Mr. Speaker, the rationale for this proposed amendment is to provide the management board with the traditional authority and grassroots legitimacy necessary to facilitate the effective reintegration of offenders within local communities through community service.
So we recognize the importance.
>> The proposed amendment is for the consideration of the house. Honorable members any further amendment I'll put a question as many as are in favor say I.
>> Those against say no the proposed amendment is ordered to stand part of the bill. Yes. V I clause five >> amendment proposed are the following new sub clause after sub clause two.
The minister shall in making an appointment under this section have regard to gender balance.
Mr. Speaker, the rationale is simple and straightforward.
Uh it is to provide for compliance with affirmative action gender equity act 2024 and ensure gender sensitivity.
Well, don't you think you are going to create a problem for the minister in view of the fact that all these are institutional representation?
How does the minister control this?
Mr. Speaker, that is why from the outset that same law requires. For instance, we're talking about institutional representation from the police service, immigration service, prisons, fire service. If the appointments are streamlined, if gender mainstreaming is adhered to, then at this point where the minister has to take into account gender considerations, he shouldn't be constrained.
>> No, but this one you are imposing the obligation on the minister.
>> Yes.
>> So if it happens Yes. that in the hierarchy you are saying the person should not be below the deputy controller general and unfortunately all are men or all are women and you come to the police service the commissioners and the deputy commissioners are all one sex definitely the law is saying that the representative of the institution must not go below that particular rank and the minister is not going to tell the Ghana police service or the Ghana immigration service that bring this particular person they do their nomination to represent. So if you are giving this particular obligation to the minister to ensure the minister may have a difficulty. Yes majority leader.
>> Yeah Mr. Speaker, you know, our own legislation passed by this parliament imposes an obligation to meet certain quoters when it comes to employment and appointments.
And so once agencies are under you and the law says that in constituting a board you must ensure gender balance. It becomes your responsibility as a minister to engineer the various agencies to have the requisite number of women well positioned to occupy that place. So if you write a letter to Ghana Immigration Service and say bring me a deputy um uh director not below the rank of X. It now becomes the responsibility of immigration service if they don't have one to immediately promote one to that rank and now present that person to you for appointment. So by by legislating it, we as a parliament have assisted have assisted for women to be given opportunities, you know, so that they can serve on the board. I'm all in favor of this.
>> Yes. My worry is imposing that obligation on the minister.
>> Yes. Because the agencies that we have in are all under that minister. So the agencies are all under that minister and so he has to choose among the various agencies which of them he's assigning the responsibility to to provide the woman who will constitute the numbers that will ensure gender equity. So it's they all all the agencies are under the same minister fire service, immigration, um prison service and then which other one and then police they're all under the same minister. So he has to balance it and say okay I'll take two women from I'll take uh two women so one will come from immigration one will come from fire service then for the men police service and then you know so so the minister should should do that let's let's let's innovate and have this provision >> yes thank you Mr. Speaker, I agree that we maintain this amendment that the minister in making an appointment under this section have regard for gender balance. Yes, of course, about three of the agencies, police, immigration and other relevant agency under the ministry of um interior have interactions with with the ministry of oversight of the minister. In addition to that the minister has occasion to influence uh two more representations even one the national coordinator of the secretariat and a representative of the minister minister of interior not below the rank of a director. So in ensuring all these appointments are made. It is incumbent on the minister in line with international best practice of affirmative action which this parliament is a very strong advocacy for uh including your good self that in an event where it turns out that all these representations institutional representations turn out to be of only one gender. The minister in considering the appointment of the other two which are now even under his direct you know perview must have such um sensitivity to ensure that there is gender balance or at least there is the same language. I am only talking about the practicality of it.
>> Yes. So Mr. Speaker the practicality of it is that >> you you he doesn't have a free role.
You are there because you are a deputy controller general. You are there because you are a deputy commissioner.
You you understand? So that that is uh institutional representation. So you don't have a hand to say that this uh what the majority leader said that you can promote somebody to that particular position to be able to send the person to represent would that be in line with their promotion criteria Mr. Speaker >> that is also another problem but if the sense of the house is for us to maintain it >> Mr. Speaker practically at any point in time you will find Mr. speaker at any point in time practically you are likely to find various gender on the rank of ACP you are likely to find u different um two gender on the rank of um the equivalent in the prison service and equivalent in the um immigration service but even where all those institutional representations fail to have regard for gender balance then the minister in appointing the national secretaria uh the the national coordinator for the secretariat and in nominating a min representative of the ministry of interior not below the rank of a director will now balance out to ensure that there is gender balance. So Mr. Speaker practically this um this provision very much then I can put a question okay I'll come to the chairman and then put a question >> Mr. Speaker just some few comments here.
First and foremost, the law as we are looking at now is imposing the obligation to appoint to the director generals or the heads of those institutions. Not the ministry nor the minister. So we shouldn't we shouldn't suggest that in the minister doing this appointment he is going to control and determine whom and the representation that should come from the sector ministry of the se the sector security agency. So we should be very careful if we want the representation to be women then let's legislate clearly and say on the institutions >> on these institutions the representation should be women but you cannot >> the institutions in bringing representation >> yes >> to have regard to gender balance >> because the minister is going to appoint the people that the institutions bring >> yes >> that is the responsibility of the minister so for instance If they say ministry of health, it is the responsibility of the ministry of health to ensure that whoever is representing the ministry is a woman.
>> Speaker, >> but you are rather imposing the obligation on the minister.
>> Exactly. So >> yes.
>> Okay. Mr. Speaker, uh I have a difficulty here. the proposal from honorable Bu because the institutions are presenting only one person.
>> Yes.
>> So if you tell them they should have regard for a woman.
>> Yes.
>> And all of them present h male h nominees. What happens?
>> If they presenting two people they can make provision for a woman.
>> Yes.
>> Presenting one each.
We are speaking we are speaking the same language.
>> Yes. the same language in the sense that the minister doesn't have the obligation to ensure that it is A that will represent immigration service, it is B that will represent the police service.
That responsibility is on the institution because it's the institution that is supposed to send representative.
For instance, if you are asking that ministry of health should bring a representative to parliament, it is the ministry of health that will decide who they should send to parliament.
You you understand? So if the ministry of health so decides that whoever they are bringing is a woman, the minister shouldn't have a problem.
Then uh if you're not careful will give the opportunity for the minister to influence the appointment process because if he gets to know that all the nominees presented to him are made he'll find a way of influencing the institutions to nominate a woman. So they are trying to use five to the new provision to cure it. But let's find a nice way of dealing with it. If not, the minister will use the back door to influence their decisions.
>> Honorable members, once we are imposing the obligation on the minister, can we zero it down to where the minister has a right to do nomination?
And Mr. Speaker, we have already made that provision.
already in the in the same clause.
>> So we should do the cross referencing.
>> Yes.
>> That the minister in making nomination under clause F 2 3 4 shall have regard to that one you are imposing the obligation on the minister.
>> So Mr. speaker with that with your guidance.
>> Yes, >> we are making reference to 5 I and 5H in those cases that are under the direct perview of the recommendation by the minister.
>> Yes, >> you should have regard >> regard to yes. Yeah, that one.
>> But even without even without those specific references, >> as for that one, >> indicating making indications for gender balance and and affirmative action is a practice that should be the minister shall in making nomination under sub clause. So, so and so then have regard to gender balance. Then that one the obligation can rest squarely on the minister.
Yes, that one can cure the the mischief.
Yes, because I foresee a a situation where the immigration service will be telling the minister that why are you dictating to us who should represent us on this board?
Telling police service that why are you dictating to us who should listen this thing? Why are you asking us to promote somebody to this particular level because of this representation? So when we where the minister have a direct opportunity to nominate when we impose that obligation on the minister then he can use his discretion and make all uh women in order to balance it.
Speaker, in as much as I agree with this particular proposition that we should tie the minister's hands to uh appointments that he directly he or she directly makes. What the fundamental question I I want to to ask is whether or not the Affirmative Action Act 2024 imposes obligations on agency heads such as the IGP, the controller general of prisons etc etc. So that if the minister has to make appointments regardless of the fact that they are institutional representatives, the minister would be beereft of the power to insist that IGP you have to respect the affirmative action act by ensuring that your nominee that is if there are no adequate quoters for let's say female representation must be female >> to the extent that if an IGP or controller general hasn't got >> female representation that then becomes the the the >> uh you are the uh chairperson for security and intelligence >> interior and defense speaker yes interior and defense how many police commissioners do we have >> several female commissioners >> how many male commissioners do we have >> male commissioners.
>> Yes.
>> Oh, we have quite a number. They in the majority, but we have a number of female commissioners.
>> When you come to controller general, >> yes.
>> Of immigration service. Yes.
>> How many of them are female?
>> The for now, but we know we have commissioners who are female, but not deputy. We used to have >> so from deputy controller general going forward. You see that is to avoid the problem is to avoid the problem because you don't know what will happen in future.
So for instance as we are speaking that the deputy controller general up to controller general of immigration service we don't have a female in that particular category. What is the immigration service going to do?
Do do you understand? So in order to law is just a communicative action in order to avoid that problem happening and in view of the fact that it is not the minister that have control over who should be the representative of these institutions he does the appointment. Let's impose the obligation on the minister where he has to do the nominations and appointment. So in that case he is under obligation because the word that we are using here is not may it shall.
>> Mr. Speaker agreed.
>> It shall.
Yes. I think the deputy uh minister for health does not agree with me.
>> Thank you Mr. Speaker. I think the mischief that this uh clause was trying to solve or to cure is so that all the representatives don't end up being men.
>> Yes. So this one all the representative will not end up being men in the sense that the minister has a say in nominating.
I think that even from where the institutions are bringing in the representative, we need to build into it. So that even if >> let me ask you this question as we speak right now currently if you are to appoint a person below the rank of deputy controller general. There is no female in that particular category. What will the minister do when it is sh >> leader said then he promotes a woman and the woman is representing >> you see you are going to distort the promotion criteria that will be more problematic you see for me the what will happen is that I'm on the same rank with you we all deserve to be promoted we have to attend promotion interview. But as a result of this, you are going to promote a woman over men that will bring a problem in the structure. You understand? But the minister has the power to nominate an infected power to nominate. So in doing his nomination he can decide that all the people that I'm going to nominate should be female because he's imposing obligation that shall but if you impose the obligation and there is a difficulty getting from the category like that of the immigr uh immigration service then there is a challenge you pose a challenge to the minister. So you pass the law all right but you have a difficulty in having the law implemented. A typical example when we pass the law on affirmative action we stated that by 2026 female representation in parliament should be 30%. What is the female representation in parliament? Is it up to 30%. So how is the law being implemented? Do we want to pass a law which will remain in our books or we want the law being implemented because we indicated on this floor that at the material time that we are passing the law you can count the number of female who file nomination to contest election and it is not the case that all of them will win the election.
So the law that we are passing to say that 30% by 2026 should be female. Meanwhile, it is only 2028 that will be doing another election. How do we achieve that 30% representation?
It ends up to be 14%. So are we operating in accordance with the law?
Yes or no?
So we will pass a similar law owing to this it will not materialize that is the worry.
So the minister has opportunity to nominate not institutional representation the minister can nominate. So those that the minister has a right to directly nominate let the minister do that having regard to gender balance so that we can leave the institutions that whoever is occupying that particular position.
You understand? Uhhuh. Then the person comes to represent. For instance, if today you are looking for a deputy minister of health to represent the health ministry, the occupant of that particular position is a female. So automatically it's going to be the female occupying that particular position. On the other hand, if you are looking for deputy minister of health and the deputy minister of health is a male, automatically once the law says deputy minister, it is that deputy minister that will go. That is the understanding of institutional representation.
So we would again ask the drafters to study this up and zero it the obligation of the minister to the provisions where the minister is to do nominations.
So I'll put a question. As many as are in favor say I.
>> As many as are in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
The proposed amendment subject to same being tidy up by the drafters is ordered to stand part of the bill.
Yes, we are still on clause five.
Honorable Bulma.
Um Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw our attention to the number of representation. It used to be 13. With the addition of um the rep from the national house of chiefs, it comes to 14 for a management board of the institution.
I'm struggling to know the the services for example that the fire service representative and that of the controller would be traditionally bringing to bear for the purposes of this com this particular secretariat because there are many times you don't need these institutional reps but there will be collaboration between the secretariat and them. So you bring members that goes to the core representations that goes to the core.
So I'm making first I wanted the chairman of the committee to give us some rationalization of these two institutional representations else we get them deleted so we can regulate and reduce and minimize the number of the of the management committee. Thank you.
>> Yes. Chairman of the committee.
>> Yes. Uh Mr. Mr. Speaker, my honorable colleague has made a valid point, but the issue is that here we're dealing with community service as an alternative to uh custodial sentencing.
Now for purposes of effective implementation, there are districts and municipalities in this country without prisons facilities.
But if you go through the act, you find that the prison service has been identified as the state institution with the statutory duty to manage convicts.
But they have sister security agencies.
So that in areas where you don't find the prisons, you will definitely find fire service or immigration service or the police service. That is why we think it is important that you list all those agencies under the ministry of interior for purposes of effective implementation. I'll give you an example. If you go to my constituency, we don't have a prisons facility. The leader's constituency has a prisons facility. So how do you implement community service in Bulsan North? You would definitely fall have to fall on either immigration service officers or fire service officers to to fill the gap that otherwise would have been created.
Yes, Mr. >> Speaker, I thought the whole objective of committee service is to do away with prison service.
I thought that was the whole objective.
So if if if not having a prison is considered as a disadvantage in implementing community service, I I find that quite quite interesting.
So, so for for municipalities and districts that don't have prisons, >> I think that the the the absence of prison officers on the board shouldn't be a problem and I agree with what you are suggesting. But I also think that the way that it has been rendered, people are going to say that for every board you must have all these officers there.
So it actually will make it more expensive because Navongo to provide a prison officer to be on the board of your district. Let's say Zilah will have to look to Boku for a prison officer to be on the board of Binduri and Zeila and then Gutane and then etc. So if you want to couch it so that you have representation from that service if that service has a presence in that district then the rendition will have to be different cuz that's what I'm getting from your explanation that if that service has a presence in the district then they will provide representation to constitute the board.
But the way it is rendered, it means that for every board to actually be complete, it must have representation from all these services whether or not that service has a presence in that uh district or municipality.
>> So, so Mr. speaker.
Yes. Um the leader's point I can appreciate but for purposes of um practice what is the practical situation on the ground and here we have to take into account the overall population of our prison service.
This it is it it is. So given given given that for purposes of implementation you would have to fall on the ground >> on the ground >> at the national level you need to have to be there. So that is where they take the strategic decisions. So if you exclude them at that level, you create gaps at the district level where uh prisons may not be present. You see?
>> Okay.
>> So yeah speaker just a a brief final comment on this. Um leader I'm looking at the functions of the management committee.
The management board shall ensure the efficient and effective performance of the functions of the secretariat and as you rightly said I was also linking it to the establishment of this at the regional and the district level where you have all of these institutions representation. So if in the wisdom of the committee and and the sponsor of the bill they think that we need all of these institutions to be present for the management of this particular job to be fully executed I don't have any hesitation >> very well >> very well so par members in the absence of any further consideration I'll put a question yes on five. Same on.
Okay.
Same on clause five. The representation need to be stratified. For instance, we are saying that the representative of the IGP or um an officer not below the rank of ACP. But when it comes to immigration, we are saying that the controller general of immigration or his rep not below the rank of deputy controller general which is just a rank beneath. So in stratifying that I'm I propose an amendment that the representative of the controller general not below the rank of a deputy commissioner.
Deputy Commissioner. Your deputy commissioner has about three ranks which and these are all very senior roles. And any of these >> which clauses are you referring to?
>> Clause you refer to C >> clause five. C the inspector general of police or a representative of the inspector general of police not below the rank of assistant commissioner of police nominated by the inspector general of police >> very well Mr. Speaker. So reference to that in F F.
>> Yes. My proposal is that the controller general of immigration, not with reference from the F of course a representative of the controller general of immigration, not below the rank of a deputy commissioner of immigration nominated by the controller general so that they are all in sync and in line cuz those regimental positions are aligned. So assistant commissioner police is equivalent to to that >> assistant commissioner police >> for whatsoever reason that limited the representative of the controller general to a rank just beneath him.
>> Me my position.
>> No no we have we have we have we have commissioners we have commissioners in immigration. So from from controller general come to deputy controller general you come to commissioner deputy commissioner and then assistant commissioner deputy commissioner DCOP of immigration is at the same level with DCOP deputy commissioner of police but here here here >> they've pegged it at ACP assistant commissioner of police >> I'm moving that equivalent in this case should be I'm moving that the equivalent rank in immigration which in this case will be assistant commissioner of immigration must be the rendition in FV below >> thank you we should step it below >> yes >> yes below below the deputy controller general >> to ACI to assistant commissioner of immigration that's the FV to be contaminous to the rank three in the police service but this one remains the second run.
Yes.
Uh, Mr. Speaker, the agencies have come of age. So if you consider that immigration service until recently had the director as the head of service but currently we now have the controller as overall boss deputy controllers commissioners deputy commissioners they've aligned their ranking system to that of police.
>> So I I think I would agree with my ranking member. So I intend to relax the rules and take this particular amendment into consideration and put a question again on this amendment regarding clause 5V.
So honorable team for move your amendment and I'll put a question on it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I propose that clause 5 F vi be read the controller general of immigration not below the rank of assistant commissioner of immigration service nominated by the controller general. I so move. As many as are in favor say I. Those against say no.
The eyes have it. The proposed amendment to clause 5 F is ordered to stand part of the bill.
Now I'll put a question on entire clause five. As many as are in favor of clause five standing part of the bill say I.
Those against say no. The eyes have it.
Clause five is ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause six >> functions of the management board.
>> Mr. Speaker, we have no proposed amendment.
>> It is for the consideration of the house. Honor members, any proposed amendment.
In the absence of any amendment, I'll put the question. As many as are in favor of clause six standing part of the bill, say I.
Those against say no. The eyes have it.
Clause six is ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause 7, >> duties and liabilities of a member of the management board.
>> Chairman of the committee.
>> Mr. Speaker, we have no proposed amendment.
>> It is for the consideration of the house. Honorable members, any proposed amendment to clause 7.
In the absence of any proposed amendment, I'll put a question as many as are in favor of clause 7 standing part of the bill. Say I. I.
>> Those against say no. The guys have it.
Clause seven is ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause eight. Tenure of office of members of the management board.
>> Chairman of the committee.
>> Mr. Speaker, we have no proposed amendments.
>> It is for the consideration of the house.
>> Yes, honorable.
>> Mr. Speaker, if you go back to the appointment of the members of the board, he says that the minister shall on the authorization and I mean here five um one each the two two five two the minister shall under authorization in writing of the president appoint members of the management board. So I'm having difficulty as to how the president would directly may in writing that is 85 address to a member revoke the appointment of the member.
I'm having difficulty with the appointment process and the revocation of the member's appointment.
I believe that the revocation should be under the authorization of the minister rather than the president.
>> Look at article 1952.
>> Article 1952 that is sorry.
Yes. 952.
>> So read it with your permission. I read 195 2. Yes.
>> of the constitution. The president may subject to such conditions as he may think fit delegate some of his functions under this article by directions in writing to the governing council.
>> Yes.
>> Concerned or a committee of the council.
>> Yes.
>> Or to any member of that governing council or to any public officer.
Three. The power to appoint persons to hold or act in an office in the body of high education, research or professional training shall vest in the council of >> that one is different. So if you read 1951, the president has the exclusive preserve to do the appointment. Now two is saying that the president may however delegate this particular power. But the fact that the president has delegated the power does not take away the ultimate responsibility. So if the law is saying that though you are appointing if a position becomes vacant I give you the authority to appoint inform me of that particular vacancy I don't think it is in violation of the constitution. Yes, honorable.
>> Yeah, rightly so. Um, honorable speaker, I think the the very legitimate concern of my colleague, respected colleague is addressed in clause 21 where it talks about the appointment of the national coordinator herein the president shall in accordance with article 195 the constitution appoints a national coordinator for the secretariat.
>> So in that regard that concern is taken care of cuz the president appoints and under same condition has the power to revoke. So the president even in appointing the national coordinator can choose to delegate that particular power to the minister but the ultimate responsibility is not taken away from the president.
So I'll put a question on clause eight.
As many as are in favor say I. I.
>> Those against say no. The service clause eight is ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause nine >> meetings of the management board.
>> Chairman, >> Mr. Speaker, we have no proposed amendments.
>> It is for the consideration of the house.
Honor members, any proposed amendment to plus nine. In the absence of any proposed amendment, I'll put a question.
As many as are in favor of clause nine standing part of the bill, say I.
As many as are in favor of clause nine standing part of the bill, say I.
>> I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes clause nine is ordered to stand part of the bill clause 10.
>> Disclosure of interest.
>> Chairman of the committee.
>> Mr. Speaker, we have no proposed amendments.
>> It is for the consideration of the house. Honorable members, any proposed amendment to clause 10.
In the absence of any proposed amendment, I'll put a question. The question therefore is as many as are in favor of clause 10 standing part of the bill say I. I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
Clause 10 is ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause 11 >> establishment of committees.
>> Chairman of committee.
>> Mr. Speaker, no proposed amendment.
>> It is further consideration of the house. Honorable members, any proposed amendment to clause 11.
In the absence of any proposed amendment, I'll put a question. As many as are in favor of clause 11 standing part of the bill, say I.
Those against say no.
The eyes have it. Clause 11 is ordered to stand part of the bill. Cl + 12 >> allowances >> chairman.
>> Mr. Speaker, we have no proposed amendments.
>> It is further consideration of the house. Honorable members, any proposed amendment? In the absence of any proposed amendment, I'll put a question as many as are in favor of clause 12 standing part of the bill say I. I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
Clause 12 is ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause 13.
>> Policy directives.
>> Chairman of committee.
>> We have no proposed amendments. Thank you.
>> It is for the consideration of the house. Honorable members, any proposed amendment. In the absence of any proposed amendment, I'll put a question to clause 13. As many as are in favor of clause 13 standing part of the bill, say I.
As many as are in favor of clause 13 standing part of the bill, say I. I.
>> Those against say no. The service have it. Clause 13 is ordered to stand part of the bill. Yes.
Majority leader. Mr. >> Speaker, we agreed to stop at clause 13.
So, let me thank the chairman and his team for taking us up to clause 13.
Um, so speaker, if we can continue the consideration stage of the human sexual rights and family values bill as well.
>> Very well. Yes, >> speaker. Um, I'm not opposed to the application by the majority leader to for us to suspend consideration on this uh bill uh since there was an agreement to end it at clause 13. But, Mr. Speaker, I would want to strongly propose to uh the leader of the house to make room for us to winnow the the bill though we've started. Um I have some very serious uh proposed amendment but I feel that it can be of greater value if we discuss it at wow win so that we can build consensus proud to come in to the house because Mr. Speaker, this bill is talking about community service, but the minister drew our attention to a serious concern regarding how bail is abused by the police and the judiciary. That was the minister's uh concern. And I believe that looking at the bill as it is, it appears that nothing at all is said about bail conditions, terms of bail. In fact, Mr. Speaker, some members in the academia have been reaching out on whether or not parliament could pass a bail act and I mentioned to them that this community service bill is being introduced. So, Mr. Speaker, it appears that there is some appetite to look at a broader way of ensuring that rights are protected especially when people face criminal charges. So, Mr. Speaker, it's a very humble application that I would want to uh put across to the leader of the house and perhaps if that is considered, we would be able to enrich this law to address some of the honorous uh bail conditions that in itself is more than a punishment as if the person has been convicted. especially uh the recent news we've been hearing about misdemeanor offenses uh you know being subjected to very honorous uh bail conditions. If we we include all of that in this bill and the final law that is um asented has in it all of these provisions that when it's a misdemeanor indeed there cannot be an issue of remand when the offense is misdemeanor.
I don't think that we should leave that to uh regulations and all of that and it is going to help all of us because Mr. Speaker, nobody knows when when something like that may befall him or her. Mr. Speaker, I so submit and pray that there will be an opportunity to deal with this at wowing.
>> Majority leader.
>> Yeah, Mr. Speaker, I have always said that we do winnowing not when committees submit many amendments to a bill that they have considered that we have referred to them to consider. We only do we knowing in my opinion when members have proposed amendments and the numbers become unwieldy so we decide to refer the matter to winnowing but once the the the recommended amendments are coming from our committee then there's nothing to wow so if you want us to do any winnowing you will have to advertise your amendments when you advertise your amendments and we see that there are many but all that you have said is just one clause amendment which is to have an amendment that relates what we are proposing to also those who are serving bill times that's what I see you trying to say we should capture in this bill but you introduce it let's see if it sits in well with the object of this bill because this bill is not dealing with the processes leading up to conviction.
The processes leading up to conviction is where bail is an issue. We are dealing with after conviction and you are being sentenced.
That's a postconviction matter. So this bill is dealing with postconviction. If there are problems in the criminal justice system leading up to conviction, we must deal with it at a different level. And yesterday, the minister for interior did indicate that he is in discussions with attorney general for them to find a framework for addressing that problem. So I don't think that that issue arises at this stage. Here we are dealing with convictions, sentencing, and an alternative to custodial sentencing. That's basically the issue you know that we are dealing with here.
So Mr. Speaker, I've heard him uh I think that we can have the discussion about honors bill terms and you know how we deal with that. If if for instance we come to a consensus as a country that certain type of offenses um there shouldn't be custodial you know bail terms or that if they arrest you you know the the provisions are there that if they arrest you the police can grant you police inquiry bail the court can grant you bail. Maybe what we should say is that there is abuse of the the processes and that is a function for let's say our judicial committee of parliament to conduct an inquiry into what the judges are doing and if as a house we resolve that we think that they are doing something wrong and we draw their attention given that it's a coordinate branch of government and we should not be seen interfering in their work and etc. Then we see if we can craft some legislation that will deal with that problem. But as it is now, don't forget that they are a coordinate branch of government. We must be careful what we do in relation to them as they work. Our job is to pass the legislation. Once we've passed the legislation, given them the discretion when they exercise the discretion, it becomes difficult for you to want to take them on because at that point you will be unduly interfering in the work of a coordinate branch of government and that is a problem. So I I I think that if we think that honors bill terms are a problem, let's have some platform for discussing that. Mr. Speaker, I still plead that we end and suspend the consideration of the community service bill and then start with the um the family values bill because uh we had agreed that we will take a few clauses of that one today and then proceed.
>> Yes. Honority leader >> speaker with respect. Uh thank you the speaker. I've listened carefully to the great submissions uh of the majority leader but I believe the burden of my submission earlier was to look at the issues as a whole rather than dealing with them in silos.
There is no difference in substance between a postconviction relief contained in this bill and a preconviction custodial orders.
They are one and the same and is a reason why I'm saying that let us take a parliamentary step to address them. Mr. Speaker, the honorable leader of the house has cautioned that we should be careful in dealing with a body with coordinate mand mandate as enshrined in the constitution. I agree with him without more. But the point is that where the judiciary itself has made a pronouncement to guide in the Martin number two case the judiciary had occasion to even pronounce on these honors bill conditions and provided a guideline to the lower court. So Mr. SPEAKER WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF the judiciary's own pronouncement and and act ON IT. IT'S LIKE WHAT THEY DID IN article 185 that article 185 requires that international commercial transactions must receive parliamentary blessing and expected us in CLA CASE THAT PARLIAMENT SHOULD ENACT a law to regulate 185.
WE'VE STILL NOT DONE IT. SO THEY HAVE ALREADY GIVEN US THE opener and if there is a clear legislation Mr. SPEAKER, IT WILL HELP THE CAUSE. GHANA IS RESPECTED for promoting human right.
THE TIME HAS COME FOR us to deal with the gaps in our laws and address them to give full confidence.
Often times you hear political actors crying foul here AND THERE DEPENDING ON WHICH SIDE THEY ARE. IF THEY ARE IN OPPOSITION, you hear them loudest. If they are in government, you don't hear them. BUT MR. SPEAKER WHETHER GOVERNMENT OR in opposition wants is injustice is INJUSTICE SO THE OPPORTUNITY is now and I'm happy that the majority leader in concluding agrees with me that we need to sit and look at it in composite if we say it is basically a postconviction law then we would be denying ourselves an opportunity to address the very concerns that the the minister responsible for this bill put out in his own argument. We need to address this issue of bail once and for all and do so by law and in clear language. AND I COULDN'T AGREE with the majority leader the more when he said that we perhaps may have to look at LEGISLATING CLEARLY THAT WHEN IT is a misdemeanor the court no matter what would have to ensure that the accused in the box is granted bail in terms that would not be honors. Mr. Speaker, I would want to end here, but I am pleading with majority leader that let us have uh winnowing on this matter. I would want us Don't worry, Mr. Speaker. It's fine if your your your prayer and pleasure is that we should advertise the proposals and then take them back to Widowwin. Uh so be it.
It's it's fine with me. We'll deal with it. But at least I agree. I I I I understand that fundamentally you agree with the the issues because Mr. Speaker, without sounding political, without sounding political, uh 2028 is just around the around the corner. We we don't know what's going to happen in 2029. Maybe if we do it well, it's going to benefit you tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Um it's it's most likely because you don't have a leader now. We have. So it's most likely that you likely going into opposition and this law would protect you against any injustice.
>> Yes, I miss government.
>> Honorable honorable members, I think uh this is not an issue that we should debate.
This is not an issue we should debate in the sense that if you read paragraph one of the memorandum underpinning the bill.
It reads the object of the bill are to establish a national community service secretarias and to provide for community service as an alternative to custodial sentence and for persons convicted of specific category of offenses.
So the meaning that I gathered here and reading from clause 39 up to 45 which talks about community service order clearly means that until and unless the person is convicted this act cannot be invoked.
Now when you talk about bail, bail is a preliminary issue because it is before a conviction and this act is talking about a person who is convicted should be given an alternative sentence to custodial sentence. That is when the law kicks in.
So to do a winnowing and take into consideration bill in this particular law may pose a problem. I however agreed that we can do winnowing and doing winnowing is conditioned on the fact that members have amendment to the bill which is unwieldy and then we refer to the winnowing committee to see it that is the by our own standing order that is where wowing is conducted but as we speak right now apart from the committee's amendment we don't have any other amendment from the members. So honorable members, I think until then we can make progress with this particular law. But I have a difficulty going referring the bill for wowing only to go and be talking about bail and bail conditions in this law. This law will only come into effect when a person is convicted for certain category of offenses.
Yes, speaker. I agree with you in substance.
Every single thing you said, including the reading of the memorandum accompanying the bill, is right and fair. But, Mr. Speaker, I am lifting the veil beyond the very bill before us to trigger or to tease out this issue largely because of what the minister said yesterday in his debate. And Mr. Speaker, you and I know that we've had instances where bills are introduced and based on the thinking of the house. Same had been redrawn and enriched considering other factors. So, Mr. Speaker, it was on that basis that I raised that issue. But I would bring my amendment. We'll discuss it and see the way forward. But it is important and I want Hanza to take note of this important view of mine that we cannot deal with postconviction sentencing regime in the form of a community service when we know that as part of the criminal juristprudence the ecosystem of the criminal law also gives way allows for bail or some pre-custodial sentencing custody the court is empowered to remand so Mr. speaker if we are dealing with it and you are right if the law says let's deal with only post custodial sentencing and we know that there's already A PROBLEM WITH REGARDS TO CERTAIN intrim orders we better ADDRESS THAT ALSO THAT is where I am coming from but I don't disagree with you >> but yes but I would want to advise and humbly crave your indulgence that with the concerns that you have raised then you must bring a private members bill to come and amend the criminal procedure act.
>> Mr. Speaker, already there's a judicial pronouncement. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court in in in in Martin number two.
>> Yes, >> Mr. Speaker. The Supreme Court of Ghana was very loud was very loud and laid out >> Yes.
>> a procedure. Yes.
>> And gave the grounds and cautioned itself.
>> Yes. especially when it comes to the discretion being exercised. Mr. Speaker, >> the constitution itself, let me let me read let me read the constitution article 296, Mr. Speaker, for the avoidance of doubt it provides with your leave. HE SAID WHERE in this constitution or in any other law discretionary power is vested in any person or authority that discretionary power shall be deemed to imply a duty to be fair and candid.
>> YES.
>> THE EXERCISE OF THE discretionary power shall not be arbitrary, capriccious or bias either by resentment, prejudice or personal dislike or shall be in accordance with due process of law. SO MR. SPEAKER BASICALLY if in considering this bill >> we want to legislate Mr. Speaker let >> me take the or take the disc if we want to legislate >> in granting bill >> TO FACTOR TO FACTOR IN THESE PREDICATED ISSUES PROVIDED for in the constitution.
Mr. this country will be seen to be upholding the rights OF CITIZENS FAIRLY AND ACROSS BOARD AND IT WILL BE A BEYOND DEBATE. SO MR. SPEAKER, IT'S ONLY A CAUTION.
IT IS NOT A MATTER OF DISAGREEING WITH YOU. I AGREE.
>> I agree that the law as it is, the proposal as it is is for postconviction.
>> Yes.
>> BUT THE MINISTER HIMSELF, MR. SPEAKER RAISED serious concerns ABOUT BAIL NOT MY argument that is the minister's argument THE MINISTER SAID BAIL IS BEING abused >> okay >> by the police and the judiciary I will say in regard to the the the community service bill anything relating to bail is out of place >> very well Mr. Mr. Speaker, that is understood. But I'm bringing an override submission for us to consider that instead of dealing with it in isolation, IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US, A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY FOR US AS A HOUSE TO DEAL WITH the issue as a whole. And I expect the lawyers in this chamber to rise up on this occasion to support this call.
But once WE ARE DEALING WITH POSTCONVICTION, LET'S DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF BAIL and act on it collectively.
>> With all due respect, not when we are considering a bill unrelated to bail.
Yes, majority leader.
>> I was just going to say that he's been out of order for far too long.
>> But I understand he's been away for a while. So he wants his presence he wants his presence noticed. He wants to register his presence. Honorable members, human sexual rights and family values bill 2025 at consideration stage.
Okay.
Yes. Chairman of the committee, are you ready?
Very well, >> Mr. Speaker. The chairman himself is in Saudi Arabia performing Hajj. So the vice chairperson will lead us in this regard. Honorable Shu.
>> Yes. The vice chairperson will lead us.
Speaker with respect I want to be brought to speed by the majority leader.
this uh bill we are about considering, is this a private members bill or a government sponsored bill? Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry I wasn't here yesterday. I've not had the opportunity of having a discussion with the the the the majority leader on this important matter. So, this is the private members bill. I see.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I just want clarity on this one. I want clarity.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has always been a private members bill.
Government has no objection. Attorney General has not indicated any objection to any thing contained in this bill, but it has always been a private members bill sponsored by members of this house and it is a bipartisan bill because we have members from both the majority and minority um appending their names as sponsors. So that's that's what it is and it remains that way.
Speaker, with respect, this is a house of records. Um, the majority leader says that government is not opposed to this bill and the attorney general likewise has expressed no objection. I just want to know the terms of such submission. Is he saying it in terms of a written record to this parliament or a no objection memo to that effect? I just want clarity since he's a leader of government.
>> Honorable minority leader, when you are confronted with a bill and the bill is a private member's motion, whether the consent by the government, the consent by the attorney general is in writing or not is neither here nor there. So we proceed with the bill clause one >> application >> chairman of the committee.
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Clause one amendment proposed paragraph A opening phrase deletate who holds out us and insert who identifies openly represents that person or professes us.
I so move.
>> Honorable members, the proposed amendment by the vice chairman of the committee is for the consideration of the house.
Any further amendment?
In the absence of any further amendment, I'll put a question on the proposed amendment emanating from the vice chairman. As many as are in favor say I.
>> Those against say no. All members, the eyes have it. The proposed amendment is ordered to stand part of the bill. Yes, >> Mr. Speaker.
Uh, clause one, amendment proposed paragraph C, line four after except deletate where the procedure is intended to correct a biological abnormality including interex and insert in the case of interex. I so move, Mr. Speaker honor members the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the house. Any further amendment in the absence of any further amendment I'll put a question as many as are in favor say I.
>> Those against say no the eyes have it.
The proposed amendment is ordered to stand part of the bill. Yes. Minority leader.
>> Speaker I want to seek your guidance. Mr. Mr. Speaker, um you as a practitioner knows that in our courts we are told that preliminary legal objection can be raised at any stage of trial. I don't know of parliament. You know, Mr. Speaker, you are in charge of the law.
Mr. Speaker, may I know your view regarding the raising of a preliminary legal objection as to whether a parliamentarian can be stopped by virtue of the the stage at which a matter can be raised or we can apply that rule in court mutates mutis in parliamentary practice. I need your guidance to enable me to uh make an application.
>> This is a house governed by rules.
So whatever you want to do if it is premise within our rules you will be permitted to do so.
I mean I think that first and foremost this house is governed by the constitution.
I believe that at any stage in the work of this parliament, if there's obvious violation of the constitution, any member can raise it and have the speaker provide uh an indication what should be the proper thing to do if if there's also a violation of our standing orders, you can raise it.
So, make sure that whatever you are going to raise is a violation of our standing orders or a violation of our constitution because if it is not any of these two, we'll have an issue in this chamber today.
>> Yes.
>> Mr. Speaker with with guidance from the majority leader.
>> I am here Mr. Speaker on my feet on the strength of the majority leader's constitutional argument to defect that by a constitutional imperative the law was already passed and it was for the president to sign for him. It would therefore be constitutionally superfluous for another bill to go through the process. I want to know Mr. Speaker whether or not that position of the majority leader is the view of this house or otherwise.
Honorable members, it is Christ learning that if an issue is raised on the floor of this house and a ruling delivered on it, it will be mischievous on part of a member of parliament to be raising the same issue.
This issue has been raised and the right honorable speaker Alban Sumana Kings for Bagin delivered a copious ruling on this issue. Therefore, I do not expect a leader of this house or any member of this house to be raising a similar issue after the speaker has delivered a ruling on it.
If you are agrieved by a ruling delivered by the speaker, I believe as members of parliament, we know what to do.
Yes.
That cannot amount to a threat.
>> Well, that cannot amount to threat.
>> Speaker, with respect, Mr. Speaker, can an application be repeated?
I understand that when you want to challenge a ruling, you file the right process.
But application can be repeated. When your application is denied, you can repeat an application and the majority leader has not departed from his own application.
And Mr. Speaker, can the same application be repeated in the circumstance? That is why in speaking I indicated clearly that in our parliamentary rules if a matter is raised and a ruling delivered on it that issue is foreclosed except when you are agreed with the ruling then what you should do is per our rules. Minority leader, you are forcing me to say that you are completely out of order.
I don't want to say it, but on this occasion, I would want to say that you are deliberately completely out of order.
Yes, Majority Leader.
>> Mr. Speaker, he is not out of order.
innocently.
Mr. Speaker, he is guilty of obstructing the passage of this bill.
He doesn't want this bill passed >> and so he will be raising all sort of issues to impede the passing of this bill.
>> Okay?
>> But I want to assure him that this bill will be passed >> and when it is passed the president will give his assent. There will be no directive to the cler of this parliament to cease and desist presenting the bill to the presidency.
There will be no threat to the cler of this parliament.
>> So please let us take the bill through the consideration stage. This parliament has indicated to Ghanaians that within the next two weeks fortnight we want this bill passed. So cooperate with us and let's pass the bill.
>> Honorable members, I'll put a question on the second amendment by the chairman of the committee. Honorable minority leader, I have indulged. No, >> Mr. Speaker, I have the pleas certain litigation must come to an end.
>> Indeed, Mr. Speaker, he is the majority leader. If it were to be me, he would demand that the right thing to be done.
Mr. Speaker, let's be fair. He cannot impute improper motive in argument in the house. You counter argue and you argue. You cannot impute improper motive. Mr. Speaker, that submission must be ordered.
>> Mr. Speaker, and say must be expuned from the >> So I I agree. So the the statement that uh honorable Alexander Fo Mkins does not want the bill to be passed and he's deliberately obstructing I ordered it to be exponed from the record. Now let me put a question on the second amendment of the chairman of the committee.
>> Your your ruling will remain on the record. I think >> the ruling of the speaker cannot be a sponge from the record.
It must remain for posterity.
I'll put a question on the second amendment proposed by the vice chairman of the committee. As many as are in favor say I. I.
>> Those against say no. The amendment is carried. Now I'll put a question on entire clause one as variously amended.
Those in favor of clause one as variously amended standing part of the bill say I. I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
Clause one is ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause two, >> duty to promote human sexual rights and family values.
>> Vice chairman of the committee. Mr. Speaker, clause two, amendment proposed subclause one line one delayed citizen and insert person. I so move. Mr. Speaker, >> the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the house.
Any further proposed amendments? In the absence of any other amendment, I'll put a question to the vice chairman's amendment. Those in favor say I.
>> Those against say no. The proposed amendment is ordered to stand part of the bill.
I'll now put a question to clause two as amended by the vice chairman of the committee. Those in favor of clause two standing as part of the bill say I.
Those against say no. The eyes have it.
Clause two is ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause three, >> prohibition of LGBTQ plus and related activities.
>> Vice chairman of the committee.
Mr. Speaker, clause 3 amendment proposed subclause one paragraph C line three after of deletate a person who has undergone a surgical procedure to correct a biological abnormality including I so move Mr. Speaker members the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the house. Any further amendment in the absence of any further amendment I'll put a question to the proposed amendment by the vice chairman of the committee. Those in favor say I.
>> Those against say no. You guys have it.
The proposed amendment to clause three is ordered to stand part of the bill.
Yes. Chairman still clause three amendment proposed subclause one paragraph E. opening phrase delete all the words hold out and insert identify openly represent that person or profess Mr. Mr. Speaker, this is consequential to uh the amendment in order cross one.
Sorry.
>> Very well. I put a question as many as are in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
The proposed amendment by the vice chairman of the committee is ordered to stand part of the bill. Now the last no more amendment to clause three. Yes. at page 34.
Chairman of the committee.
>> Mr. Speaker, clause three, amendment proposed, subclause one, paragraph F, sub paragraph I I delete and insert the following.
I I any other procedure that is intended to create a sexual category other than the sexual category of the person determined at birth except in the case of interex.
I so move, Mr. Members, the proposed amendment by the chairman of the committee to class three F say I.
>> Those again say no. The eyes have it.
The proposed amendment is ordered to stand part of the bill. Yes, >> Mr. Speaker. Clause three again.
Amendment proposed subclass one paragraph G sub paragraph I I deletate and insert the following I I any other procedure that is intended to create a sexual category other than the sexual category of the person determined at birth except in the case of interex. I so move Mr. There you go.
Very well. I'll put a question. As many as are in favor say I.
>> Those are against say no. The eyes have it. The proposed amendment is carried.
Now >> the last amendment to cross three.
>> Yes. Once again cross three. Amendment proposed sub cross three. delete and insert as follows. Mr. Speaker, as captured at page 34, paragraph LXX V I I I saw move, Mr. Speaker.
Honor members, the proposed amendment as captured in paragraph 34, S I X V I.
Any further proposal? In the absence of any further proposal, I'll put a question. As many as are in favor say I.
I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
The proposed amendment is order to stand part of the bill. I'm looking at the sponsors who are not responding to the question.
They are not responding to their own proposed amendments.
Now I'll put a question on clause three as variously amended. Those in favor say I. I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
Clause three as variously amended is ordered to stand part of the bill.
Clause four >> procuration.
>> Vice chairman of the committee.
>> Mr. Speaker, clause four amendment proposed sub clause one. Delete and insert as follows. One, a person shall not by threats, obstruction, deterrence, molestation, intimidation, inducement, false pretense, force representation, or any other means procure another person to engage in a sexual act prohibited under this act. I so move, Mr. Speaker, members, the proposed amendment is for the consideration of the house.
I'll put a question as many as are in favor of the proposed amendment say I.
Those against say no that have the proposed amendment is ordered to stand part of the bill. Now I put a question on entire clause four in the absence of any further amendment. The question is as many as are in favor of clause four as amended standing part of the bill say I.
Those against say no the eyes have it.
Clause four is ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause five, >> detention with intent to commit prohibited sexual activity.
>> Vice chairman of the committee.
>> Mr. Speaker, there is no proposed amendment.
>> There's no proposed amendment, but it is for the consideration of the house.
Honorable members, any proposed amendment coming from members?
In the absence of any proposed amendment, I'll put a question on clause five. As many as are in favor say I. I.
Those again say no. The eyes have it.
Clause five is ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause six >> keeping a brothel for a prohibited sexual activity.
>> Chair vice chairman of the committee.
>> Mr. Speaker, clause six amendment proposed delete and insert as captured at page 35 paragraph LXXIX of today's other paper. I so move Mr. Speaker. All members the proposed amendment is for your consideration.
Any further amendment in the absence of any further amendment I'll put a question as many as are in favor say I.
I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
Clause six is accordingly the proposed amendment to clause six is ordered to stand part of the bill. Now I'll put a question to entire clause six in the absence of any further amendment. The question is as many as are in favor of clause six as amended standing part of the bill say I.
>> I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
Clause six as amended is ordered accordingly to stand part of the bill.
Clause 7 >> prohibition of gross indecency >> vice chairman of the committee >> Mr. Speaker clause 7 amendment proposed subclause three opening phrase line one delete means and insert includes I so move it is further consideration of the house any further amendment I'll put the question as many as are in favor say I >> those against say no the eyes have it clause the proposed amendment to clause 7 is ordered to stand part of the bill now I put a question on entire clause Seven. As many as are in favor of clause 7 standing part of the bill, say I. I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
Clause 7 is accordingly ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause eight.
>> Void marriage.
>> Chairman of the committee.
>> Mr. Speaker, clause eight. Amendment proposed subclause 2 line two delete uninforcable and insect not recognized.
I so move, Mr. Speaker members, the proposed amendment to clause 8 is for the consideration of the house.
Any further amendment? In the absence of any further amendment, I'll put the question as many as are in favor of the proposed amendment by the vice chairman of the committee say I.
>> I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
The proposed amendment is ordered to stand part of the bill. Now I'll put a question on entire clause 8 in the absence of any further amendment. The question is as many as are in favor of clause eight as amended standing part of the bill say I. I.
>> Those against say no. The eyes have it.
Clause eight as amended is ordered to stand part of the bill. Clause nine.
>> Prohibition of propangada of promotion and advocacy for activities prohibited under this act.
>> Vice chairman of the committee.
>> Mr. Speaker, clause 9 amendment proposed subclause 2 paragraph A at the beginning insert engage in propaganda of advocates. I so move Mr. Speaker.
>> Honor members, the proposed amendment is for your consideration.
>> Yes, >> um I I'm a sponsor, key sponsor of this bill. The amendment being proposed here is alien was smuggled in and we cannot accept it. Mr. Speaker, the thrust of this bill is to ensure that we prohibit propaganda, promotion, advocacy of activities that are, you know, uh, very strange and not unacceptable in our culture and our norms. And these activities, the promotion, the advocacy of are done by the very people this amendment seeks to exempt, then we have no bill at all. So if you want to exempt Ghana Ace Commission for instance um for the performance of public health function including HIV and AIDS prevention, testing, treatment and care.
If you are saying for instance in the D that there's dissemination of information by a governmental body a non-governmental body organization development partner or other body engaged in the delivery of health services or health related services.
Most of these are the very bodies who appeared before the committee.
>> You are opposed to the proposed amendment.
>> I'm I'm opposed to the entire amendment.
>> Paragraph two.
>> Yes, I'm opposed to >> sub clause two paragraph A at the beginning insert engage in propaganda of advocates. Is that what you are opposed to?
>> No. No, Mr. Speaker. I'm opposed to the the amendment granting um >> but the amendment that we are considering is I XX I I and >> very well I'm not the use of the word I'm not Mr. Speaker >> the use of the word smuggle in >> I I'm not consider an amendment and I will draw in parliament you say it has been small >> my concern my concern will be on the second one which I'll come back to so before you come to the second one everything you said regarding the small is to be a sponsor from the record >> so now I'll put a question on the first amendment to clause nine as many as are in favor say I >> I >> those again say no. The first amendment to clause nine by the vice chairman of the committee is ordered to stand part of the bill. Now the second amendment that is Ix XXX I I I vice chairman. Mr. Speaker, clause 9 amendment proposed add the following new sub clause as captured at page 36 paragraph LX XX I I I so move Mr. Speaker >> for the consideration of the house. Yes honorable Nim Fjo.
>> Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. So that is that that is where my concern is.
Yes. Majority leader said before you come.
So majority leader >> Mr. Speaker perhaps the chairman of the committee needs to brief the house on what informed the committee to propose this um new subclause.
So the chair of the committee uh I'm sure the committee at its deliberation considered certain factors to warrant this proposal that you are making to the house. So I think that it will be better that you explain why this is being proposed instead of just saying that you're proposing this without explaining yourself because members are going to respond to your proposal.
Members, yes, chairman of the vice chairman of the committee.
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity. Mr. speaker.
Um if you look at those provisions particularly the clause 92 it talks about uh promote or support an act prohibited under this act engaging participate in promote or support an act aimed at changing public opinion towards an an act prohibited under this act or offer premises or any other movable. So Mr. Speaker, what this provision is seeking to do, the new provision that we are seeking to introduce is to create some exceptions and that is why for instance if you look at the A, it says the provision of legal advice or legal representation so that Mr. Speaker, if a lawyer for instance is rendering his services, it cannot be captured under the provisions of the act. to be an exception. If you have submissions or representations made to a court, tribunal or even parliament, a commission of enquiry or body exercising judicial quiz judicial functions, these are all things that fall under the exceptions. Uh if if some work is being done that has to do with academic research and all that, these are all being exempted because Mr. Speaker, if we don't do that, what it means is that all these activities will be bad by the law, will be prescribed by the law, and that will be that will means that we'll be treading on very dangerous grounds.
>> Well, we can take it one after. Okay, let me let's hear you now, >> Mr. Speaker. As a key sponsor of the bill, we had a public hearing on this consideration. Which tape is available?
At no point in this live telecasted deliberation and consideration did at the committee accept that this must be the a a new clause that must be introduced. The honorable speaker, the very thrust of the constitution of the bill that we have introduced which we introduced previously and same we are introducing now is to be able to gag prohib to to prohibit pro promotion and pro propaganda and advocacy of these abominable practices and we well know that the very clandestine avenues where these propaganda and advocacies are championed are through these NOS's international organiz organizations bodies and and under the guise of medical interventions. Mr. Speaker, in the course of the deliberation live on TV, there were some of these bodies who were able represented and vocally confessed that they even supply condoms and other aids to persons engaged in these abnormalities that we are prescribing. It is for which reason that you would notice in this bill that the the sentencing regime for prohibition propaganda and advocacy is even higher and stronger than those committing the act itself. So for you to say that you are introducing and and forgive me for the word I previously used but this is where it applies for you to smuggle in a whole new clause which is now going to give exemption to the very >> I advise you that when a bill is referred to a committee >> it is in the domain of the committee.
>> So Mr. Speaker committees cannot therefore a strange introduction >> propose an amendment and you will refer to those proposal as having been smuggled in.
>> Mr. Speaker, it was never part of any of the proposals.
>> Are you a member of the committee?
>> I'm a key sponsor.
>> Yes. And if you are of the committee for instance >> and Mr. Speaker, my co-sponsor for members of the committee have given me just hold it. If attorney general brings a bill to parliament and the bill is referred to a committee and the committee came out with a proposal, attorney general cannot come and say that this is not part of my bill.
Therefore, that aspect has been smuggled into the ding. But what I want us to do is to take these exemptions one after the other. Are we saying that the a the provision of legal advice or legal representation to anybody who is accused or arrested for the prohibited act should in itself be a criminal action that we have to consider it as a house?
>> No, Mr. Speaker, the the bill the the prohibitions are clear. It says that subject to the consu a person shall not produce, procure, market, broadcast, disseminate, publish or distribute through a medium, technological platform, technological account or any other means or a film, the internet service or electronic device or any other device capable of electronic storage or transmission. Then again the person shall not promote or support an an act prohibited under this act engage in participate in promote or support an act aimed at changing public opinion towards an act prohibited under this act. Okay Mr. Speaker the instances you have you have raised they do not in any way intend >> to to to be to to propagate any of these prohibitions I have mentioned. So there's no need to create any assumption.
>> If somebody is accused of LGBTQ, the principle is that all suspects are deemed innocent. And today we file pleadings and correspondence through electronic means to the courts and a lawyer does that. And definitely the lawyer's argument or the lawyer's uh uh uh statement written by the lawyer is going to be in support of that particular uh uh accused person. So do we take it that that lawyer is guilty of an offense?
>> Mr. Speaker, we are talking about procedures at court which procedures are subject to the constitution and here the preamble is subject to the constitution.
Yes.
>> So we have made it clear any activity that we are talking about and the very groups that whoever put this amendment in is seeking to exempt whatever they are doing subject to the constitution.
If it's subject to the constitution no need to them.
>> This provision in a is in conssonance with the provision in the constitution >> and we are making it clearer.
>> Yes. So if it is making it clearer let's move away and look at the B.
Submission or representation made to a court or tribunal, parliament, commission of enquiry or a body exercising judicial or quasal judicial function. Is it also in conssonance with the provision of the >> Mr. Speaker?
The point I want to make is that we as sponsors are opposed to these assumptions being created because without these assumptions the bill is sound as we propose it. It doesn't take anything. But if suddenly in 2026 the majority may want to pass a bill which in which exempts legal representatives >> honorable injuries >> I wash my hands off that honorable team for it is the house that is passing. The entire the entire incession we cannot be part of.
>> Honorable Tim Fjo, why won't you listen to a guidance?
>> The entire >> Yes. Let me hear.
>> Yeah. Honorable Tim Fger, you are the sponsor of the bill.
>> One of the sponsors.
>> One of the sponsors of the bill.
In your own bill, clause 9 subclass one. You say subject to the constitution. Can you tell us which aspects of the constitution you are subjecting this clause to?
Which which clauses of the constitution are you subjecting clause 912?
What in the constitution are you trying to protect when you say subject to the constitution?
You definitely have seen that all the offenses that you are prescribing in clause 9 have a bearing on some provisions of the constitution.
So for clarity for us in this house to go along with you, can you tell us specifically which aspects of the constitution you are subjecting clause 9 to? It arises because that is that is what listen that is that is what civil society groups raise as an objection.
So media houses and journalists raise an objection that you are violating their right to free speech.
Then academics raise objection >> that the way that we are crafting the legislation, it even denies them of engaging in research and publishing the findings of their research. Then lawyers raise objection that the way we have couched the offense, it means that if a lawyer goes to court to advocate for somebody who is engaged in the offense, some aspects of the advocacy in court might actually be impinging on the provisions of the legislation.
So those are the provisions.
Those are the provisions that I believe you, the very crafter of the bill, you envisage when you set in your own bill in 91 subject to the constitution because you recognize that there are certain constitutionally conferred rights and that the way that you have couched your clause 9, we are in danger of violating those constitutional rights.
And it is to address that concern that the committee has teased out those cases that potentially your own bill had in mind when it says subject to the constitution. So for you to rise up and say that the minority the majority is smongling in something you made provision in your bill saying subject to the constitution. We are demanding that you specify which provisions of the constitution and which particular conduct the constitution protects which you yourself are saying that we should subject your clause to.
>> Uh before you come in, >> let me supply a constitutional provision in article 142.
It reads a person who is arrested, restricted or detained shall be informed immediately in a language that he understands of the reason of his arrest, restriction or detention and of his right to a lawyer of his choice. So it therefore means that anybody who is arrested going to be restricted, going to be detained as a result of prohibited offenses will be entitled to a lawyer of his own choice. Now this prohib uh pro exemption in one is saying that the provision of legal advice or legal representation is an exception to the rules and the constitution give right to that particular accused person to choose a lawyer of his own choice. So in the event of choosing the lawyer of his own choice and the lawyer speaking in favor of that particular person, do we say that that lawyer in performing this constitutional function is against is is is violating this particular act.
That is why the law is subjecting it to the provisions of this constitution. So this one substantiates and makes it clearer. I appear before a tribunal. I appear before a quiza judicial body and advocating for LGBTQ person.
And that person is exercising his constitutional right of a lawyer of his own choice. So they are saying that that lawyer cannot be guilty of an offense in two.
>> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. um rightfully guided but is Mr. Speaker suggesting that the the eight parliament passed an illegal bill.
>> Well, is this ruling suggesting that let me in the same form that was passed?
>> Let me provide you.
>> It doesn't make the law illegal. Other than that, no bill after passage will come to parliament for amendment. So law is very dynamic. It's an instrument of social engineering. It is a communicative action.
Vidéos Similaires
Guess Which Country Trump Is Threatening To Bomb Next! w/ Chris Hedges
thejimmydoreshow
5K views•2026-05-30
Russia Clashes With Romania, U.S. And EU At Security Council Meeting | DWS News | AC1F
dwsofficial
344 views•2026-06-02
Independence Calendar (Episode #25) - With Cory Morgan & Keith Wilson
JohnBoltonAB
3K views•2026-05-31
BREAKING: TRUMP ADMITS HE LIED ON CIA
DarrenMonroePolitics
10K views•2026-06-01
Why Reynosa Is Burning Now: The Truth Explained
THEFACTFACTORYF
560 views•2026-05-30
भिंत #rohitpawar#sharadpawar#ajitpawar#supriyasule#baramati #supriyasulefc#baramatikar#ncp#ncpsp
Aapla_Maharashtraa
9K views•2026-06-02
Bengal News | Another TMC MP Attacked In Bengal A Day After Assault On Abhishek Banerjee
NDTV
80K views•2026-05-31
Karnataka's Biggest Leadership Shift! What Changes Under DK Shivakumar? | South Central | ET Now
ETNow
205 views•2026-06-01
