[ad_1]
Parliament, by majority decision, approved a legal proposal to transfer responsibility for ministerial oversight of the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) from the Ministry of Commerce to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Although ministerial responsibility is already being exercised by the Minister of Food and Agriculture (MoFA), it has not yet been approved by an act of Parliament.
The Ghana Cocoa Board (Amendment) Bill 2017 seeks to amend Section 39 of Provincial National Defense Council (PNDC) Act 81, which established COCOBOD, to give ministerial responsibility for the Board’s activities in the hands of the Minister of Food and Agriculture.
Under Law 81 of the PNDC, the Minister of Commerce and Industry exercises ministerial responsibility over COCOBOD, but that responsibility, in practice, is handled by the Minister of Food and Agriculture.
The Government of Ghana believes that it has become imperative to secure the legal backing of the Minister of Agriculture and Food in handling the oversight responsibility of Ghana’s COCOBOD.
Ben Abdallah Banda, Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, introducing the report of the committee, recalled that the Ghana Cocoa Board (amendment) was presented to Parliament on February 27, 2018 by Dr. Anthony Akoto Osei, Minister of Monitoring and Evaluation on behalf of the Attorney General and the Minister of Justice in accordance with article 106 of the 1992 Constitution.
Mr. Banda justified the amendment and said that the envisaged change in ministerial responsibility under the law is to adequately focus cocoa production as the main function of the Board.
He said that the fact that cocoa production was under the mandate of the agricultural sector makes it imperative that the Minister of Agriculture has the responsibility to oversee the Ghana Cocoa Board and matters related to the production of cocoa as an agricultural product.
He was aware of the fact that the role of COCOBOD went beyond the production of commercial crops; the Board is also responsible for the processing and marketing of these crops.
Mr. Banda said that the production of the crop is the main or basic duty of COCOBOD and therefore justified the proposal to give the ministerial responsibility of COCOBOD to the Minister of Agriculture.
Furthermore, COCOBOD, according to its statutory objectives, is mandated to play a significant role in the Ghanaian economy by employing some 800,000 people and generating some US $ 2 billion annually. Cocoa is also an important contributor to the country’s Gross Domestic Product.
He said the amendment is also in line with the government’s goal of achieving the goal of one million tons of cocoa production per year.
Alhaji Inusah Fuseini, a senior member of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, complained that minority members of the committee had great difficulty understanding the government’s justification for the amendment.
According to him, the proposed amendment was simply to redefine the term “Minister” to mean Minister of Agriculture.
He cited Article 106 (1) (2a) to argue that no bill will be tabled in Parliament unless accompanied by explanatory memoranda, setting out in detail the policies and principles if the bill, adding that the proposed amendment it did not meet that requirement. .
Alhaji Fuseini also stated that the Ministry of Commerce and Industries was designated as the Ministry of supervision by Law 81 of the PNDC more than 35 years ago, and that COCOBOD was operating under the ministry all these years without defects.
“So, when the Attorney General presented the bill and referred it to us, it seemed to us that there were other considerations besides the marketing of cocoa, which was informing the realignment of this ministry,” he said.
The Rank Member also indicated that during the Committee hearing that one of the COCOBOD Chief Executives present actually said in their operations, they had no difficulty with the current arrangement.
“So the only conclusion we come to is that this current amendment does not meet the requirement of Article 106 (1) (2a) or is motivated by defects in the existing arrangement. That is why we cannot support this amendment, ”he added.
