Government’s proposal for amendments to the Assets Declaration Act 550 to Parliament has been rejected by the subsidiary legislation committee of Parliament. The proposal seeks amongst others, a public declaration of assets by public office holders upon assumption of office and after. It is in line with President Mill’s campaign promise of making public officials more accountable. But sources close to the committee have told Joy News proposed amendments to the existing law contravenes provisions in the constitution. The legal instrument, or LI which will seek to amend the existing law, was submitted by the immediate past Auditor General Edward Dua Agyemang. The LI spells out the arrangement of the regulation and reads as follows: 1. Asset declaration forms, under which the Auditor-General makes the forms available to public officers, 2. Submission of forms by the public officers, 3. Receipt of forms by the Auditor General who acknowledges receipt of the declaration, 4. Record of declaration where the AG makes a written record of the particulars of the declaration 5. Verification of the information where the AG verifies the information as a true account or request a public officer to rectify a defect on the forms and resubmit it within 40 days, and 6. Publication of the declaration, under which the Auditor-General shall publish the assets and liabilities declared by a public office holder in two editions of the Gazette within 30 days of receipt The new additions to the existing law which some legal pundits say is inconsistent with the constitution include 4, 5 and 6 where the Auditor General records the particulars of the declaration, verifies it and publishes it. They cite Article 286(3) of the constitution which states that the declaration can only be produced before a court or commission of enquiry or CHRAJ. This means that it cannot be made public unless these conditions are met. They further argue that even the Auditor General cannot peruse the contents of the declaration submitted by the office holders, until the three conditions are met. In essence, the three proposals cannot be passed into law unless the three provisions in Article 286(3) are amended, and because they are entrenched in the constitution, it would require a referendum to change it. For these reasons the subsidiary legislation committee has rejected the amendments and has asked government to re-examine the LI. But the legal pundits say government’s hands are tied by the constitution and it is not likely that they may do much about the proposals unless it takes the decision to organize a referendum to give meaning to its pledge for greater accountability.