The Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) has rejected criticism of the newly passed Cocoa Bill, insisting there is “absolutely nothing” wrong with the legislation.
Head of Public Affairs at COCOBOD, Jerome Kwame Sam, says the bill was subjected to extensive scrutiny before Parliament passed it.
He was responding to continued concerns raised by the Minority over provisions contained in the legislation.
The new bill has generated controversy following its passage by Parliament. It seeks to strengthen the legal framework governing Ghana’s cocoa sector and includes provisions aimed at protecting cocoa farms.
The legislation has also attracted criticism over restrictions on the conversion of cocoa farms to other uses, with concerns raised about the potential impact on farmers.
Parliament passed the bill last month, and it is currently awaiting presidential assent.
But Mr Sam dismissed the concerns, arguing that the legislation was designed to protect the interests of cocoa farmers.
“I have been trying very hard to comprehend when it comes to the narrative being pushed by the minority, because from day one the minority have been in arms against this new bill for reasons best known to them.”
He said he was not surprised that the Minority had continued to raise objections even after the passage of the bill.
“But coming to the second leg of the question that you asked, coming from my own point of view, there is nothing in the bill that should be of much concern to the cocoa farmer because if you read the bill in Plano, you could see that the bill seeks to protect the interest of the cocoa farmer.”
Mr Sam said the legislation introduces several reforms that were absent from previous laws governing the cocoa sector.
“Well, there are a number of reforms that have been introduced in the bill, which ab initio never existed in any of the laws that govern the sector.”
He questioned the basis for describing the legislation as unfit for purpose or harmful to cocoa farmers.
“So if somebody should come and they label the bill as not fit for purpose or certain provisions in there that are inimical to the interest of the cocoa farmer, then I find it quite difficult to understand where the person is coming from.”
Asked directly whether he believed there was anything wrong with the bill, Mr Sam was emphatic.
“There’s absolutely nothing.”
He explained that the bill was not drafted solely by COCOBOD, but was developed with expert input before being subjected to parliamentary scrutiny.
“Apart from engaging experts for the draft of the bill, we had opportunity to also meet with the legislative committee in Parliament, where they also scrutinise the bill.”
He said the legislation subsequently went through Parliament clause by clause, with lawyers and lawmakers examining its provisions and making changes where necessary.
“They expressed their views, their opinions, where there should be amendments, there were amendments, where there ought to be complete deletion or expunge. They did say, and all that.”
Mr Sam cited the removal of a provision relating to mining licences as evidence of the scrutiny the bill received.
He explained that an earlier provision required a person granted a mining licence to obtain the express permission of the COCOBOD Chief Executive.
According to him, that provision was found to be inconsistent with the Constitution and the Minerals and Mining Act because mineral resources are vested in the President.
“If somebody has gone through the right process and has been issued a license, and then you say that an express permission would has to be granted by the chief executive of Coco Board, then it contradicts provisions in what in the constitution.”
He said the provision was therefore removed during the parliamentary process.
“So it has to be Parliament dealing with this.”
Mr Sam said the process demonstrated why it was inaccurate to suggest that Parliament did not have sufficient opportunity to examine the legislation.
“If Parliament indeed had not had the opportunity to scrutinize the bill, how would these things have been dealt with?”
He said the continued suggestion that Parliament had little or no opportunity to scrutinise the bill was concerning.
“So the impression created out there as though Parliament never had any time or opportunity to dealing with the bill is something of much concern, and it comes to the credibility of the narrative being put out there by the minority.”
