The Head of Public Affairs at the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Jerome Kwame Sam, says the Minority in Parliament has opposed the new cocoa bill from the outset and continues to raise concerns despite its passage.

According to him, claims that the legislation contains provisions that could harm cocoa farmers are unfounded.

“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.

Mr Sam said he was therefore not surprised that the Minority had continued to criticise the legislation after Parliament passed it.

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

He maintained that the legislation was designed to protect the interests of cocoa farmers and introduced reforms that did not previously exist under the laws governing the sector.

“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.

“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.

He also rejected suggestions that COCOBOD drafted the bill without adequate scrutiny, explaining that experts were engaged in its preparation before the legislation was subjected to parliamentary review.

“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 explained.

According to him, Parliament subsequently examined the legislation clause by clause, with amendments made 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 said.

Mr Sam cited a provision concerning mining licences as an example of how parliamentary scrutiny helped improve the bill.

He said the initial version required a person granted a mining licence to obtain the express permission of the COCOBOD Chief Executive.

He explained that this was found to be inconsistent with constitutional provisions and the Minerals and Mining Act because mineral deposits are vested in the President.

“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 such changes demonstrated the importance of Parliament’s scrutiny of the legislation.

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

Mr Sam said he was concerned about what he described as an impression that Parliament had little or no opportunity to properly examine the bill.

“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.