The Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) has pushed back against mounting criticism of the newly passed Cocoa Bill, asserting that the legislation is sound and designed to safeguard the nation’s cocoa sector.
Jerome Kwame Sam, Head of Public Affairs at COCOBOD, firmly rejected concerns raised by the Minority, maintaining that the bill underwent rigorous parliamentary scrutiny before its passage.
The legislation, which currently awaits presidential assent, has sparked debate over provisions that restrict the conversion of cocoa farms to alternative uses. Critics have voiced fears about potential negative impacts on farmers, but Mr. Sam contends that these objections are unfounded.
“I have struggled to understand the narrative being pushed by the Minority,” Mr. Sam stated.
“From day one, they have opposed this bill for reasons best known to them. However, if you read the bill in full, it is clear that its primary objective is to protect the interests of the cocoa farmer.”
Mr. Sam emphasised that the bill introduces significant reforms absent from previous sector laws. He questioned the legitimacy of labelling the legislation as “not fit for purpose,” arguing that such claims ignore the extensive consultative process involved.
He highlighted that the bill was not drafted in isolation but involved expert contributions and rigorous review by Parliament’s legislative committee.
“The bill was taken clause by clause,” he explained.
“Lawyers and lawmakers scrutinised every provision, proposed amendments where necessary, and even expunged clauses that were deemed inconsistent.”
To illustrate this point, Mr. Sam cited the removal of a provision requiring mining license holders to obtain permission from the COCOBOD Chief Executive.
“That clause was found to conflict with the Constitution and the Minerals and Mining Act, which vest mineral resources in the President. Parliament rightly removed it,” he noted.
He expressed concern over what he described as a misleading narrative that Parliament lacked adequate time to examine the bill.
“If Parliament had no opportunity to scrutinise it, how would these changes have been made?” he asked.
“The insinuation that the process was rushed is not only inaccurate but also undermines the credibility of the Minority’s arguments.”
