The Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) has rejected concerns raised by the Minority over the newly passed Cocoa Bill, insisting the legislation contains reforms aimed at protecting cocoa farmers and addressing gaps in the management of the sector.

Head of Public Affairs at COCOBOD, Jerome Kwame Sam, said there was nothing in the legislation that should cause concern among cocoa farmers.

Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, he said several provisions introduced in the new law did not exist in previous legislation governing the cocoa sector.

“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 acknowledged the Minority’s right to express its views but rejected claims that the new law is inimical to farmers.

“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.”

According to him, the legislation introduces a number of reforms that were absent from the laws previously governing the sector.

“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 said.

Mr Sam also defended the legislative process, arguing that the bill was not simply drafted and pushed through Parliament without scrutiny.

He said COCOBOD engaged experts during the drafting process and subsequently worked with Parliament’s legislative committee to review the proposed law.

“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 scrutinize the bill went to Parliament, where clause by clause, the fine lawyers in Parliament were all present,” he said.

He said proposed provisions were amended or removed where Parliament found them problematic.

Mr Sam cited a provision concerning mining activities on cocoa farms as an example of how parliamentary scrutiny changed the legislation.

He explained that the initial bill required anyone granted a mining licence to obtain express permission from the Chief Executive of COCOBOD.

That provision, he said, was found to conflict with the Constitution and the Minerals and Mining Act because mineral resources are vested in the President and mining licences are issued through the appropriate statutory process.

“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.

The provision was therefore removed during the parliamentary process.

Mr Sam said the example demonstrates why Parliament’s scrutiny of the bill was important.

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

He also criticised what he described as the impression that Parliament had little or no opportunity to properly consider the legislation.

“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,” he said.