The Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) has rejected concerns raised by the Minority in Parliament over the newly passed cocoa legislation, describing the opposition’s narrative as “unfounded.”

Head of Public Affairs at COCOBOD, Jerome Kwame Sam, said the legislation was subjected to extensive scrutiny before it was passed by Parliament.

He argued that there is nothing in the new law that should worry cocoa farmers, insisting that its provisions are designed to protect their interests.

“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 on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday.

“I am not surprised at all that even after the passage of the bill, they are still continuing making argument in relation to certain issues which I see or term them as unfounded.”

Mr Sam, however, acknowledged the Minority’s right to express its concerns, saying such freedom is constitutionally protected.

“But well, I mean, expression of opinion is enshrined in the constitution. Hence, there isn’t any way anybody from Coco Board can begrudge any member of the minority, so they are free to express their opinion.”

He maintained that a careful reading of the legislation shows that it seeks to protect cocoa farmers and introduces reforms that were not contained in previous laws governing the sector.

“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.”

“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 added.

Mr Sam also rejected suggestions that the legislation was passed without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.

He explained that COCOBOD engaged experts in drafting the bill and subsequently worked with Parliament’s legislative committee.

“This isn’t a bill that we sat at Coco House and drafted. 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.

According to him, the legislation went through clause-by-clause consideration, with lawyers in Parliament proposing amendments where necessary.

“Where there should be amendments, there were amendments, where there ought to be complete deletion or expunge. They did say, and all that,” he stated.

He cited a provision concerning mining licences as an example of an amendment made during parliamentary scrutiny.

Mr Sam said the initial provision required anyone granted a mining licence in cocoa-producing areas to obtain express permission from the Chief Executive of COCOBOD.

He explained that the provision was removed after it was found to conflict with constitutional provisions and the Minerals and Mining Act.

“So 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.

He argued that the changes demonstrated the importance of Parliament’s scrutiny of the legislation.

“So if Parliament indeed had not had the opportunity to scrutinize the bill, how would these things have been dealt with?”

Mr Sam said claims suggesting that Parliament did not have adequate opportunity to examine the bill were therefore misleading.

“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.”