Amidu joins antagonists for bill to be withdrawn

A former Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Martin Amidu, has joined the antagonists of the Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages Bill, calling for its withdrawal from Parliament.

This, he said, would enable it to meet the constitutional precondition for it to be properly introduced in Parliament, as in  its current state, the bill attacked the civil liberties of Ghanaians.

He said the bill was a far departure from international best practice and should be given more time for the Minister of the Interior and the Attorney General to harmonise it with existing legislation.

Article 106 unfulfilled?

In a memo written to the Speaker of Parliament, entitled “Interception of Postal Packets and Telecommunication Messages Bill, 2015, he asserted that the mandatory constitutional injunction in Article 106 that the bill should be accompanied “by an explanatory memorandum setting out in detail the policy and principles of the bill, the defects of the existing law, the remedies proposed to deal with those defects and the necessity for its introduction” could not play a secondary role to any Standing Orders of Parliament.

“Admittedly, Parliament might be very busy and may not have the resources and personnel to critically examine all bills before they are introduced in Parliament.

“But now that the defects of the memorandum to this particular Bill have been pointed out, Parliament may be doing the nation a good service if it required that the bill be withdrawn and the proper memorandum with the explanation and details enjoined under the Constitution provided,” he said

Debate

The introduction of the bill to Parliament last month has generated a lot of debate, courting more public dissatisfaction than support.

A number of civil society organisations and political parties, including the New Patriotic Party (NPP), OccupyGhana and IMANI Ghana, have kicked against the bill meant to fight crime and terrorism.

The latest to join the fight is Mr Amidu, who argues that the bill has not met the condition precedent under Article 106 of the Constitution to be introduced in and to be deliberated upon by Parliament.