The Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) has strongly defended the newly passed Cocoa Bill, dismissing sustained criticism from the Minority and insisting that the legislation contains no provisions that should threaten the interests of cocoa farmers.
COCOBOD’s Head of Public Affairs, Jerome Kwame Sam, said the bill underwent extensive consultation and parliamentary scrutiny before it was passed, arguing that concerns about its potential impact on farmers were misplaced.
Mr Sam’s comments come amid growing controversy surrounding the legislation, which was passed by Parliament last month and is currently awaiting presidential assent.
The new law is intended to strengthen the legal framework governing Ghana’s cocoa industry while introducing measures aimed at protecting cocoa farms from being converted to other uses. However, the Minority has raised concerns about some of its provisions, particularly restrictions relating to the conversion of cocoa farms.
But Mr Sam rejected the criticisms, saying the legislation was fundamentally designed to safeguard cocoa farmers and strengthen the sector.
He questioned the basis for the Minority’s continued opposition to the bill, arguing that its provisions should be assessed against the interests of farmers rather than political narratives.
According to him, the legislation introduces a number of reforms that were not contained in previous laws governing the cocoa sector.
He said attempts to portray the bill as harmful or unfit for purpose were difficult to understand, particularly because of the measures it introduces to protect cocoa production and farmers’ livelihoods.
Asked whether he believed there was anything fundamentally wrong with the legislation, Mr Sam gave an unequivocal response: “There’s absolutely nothing.”
He further explained that COCOBOD did not draft the bill in isolation. Experts were engaged during the drafting process, after which the proposed legislation was presented to Parliament for detailed examination.
Mr Sam said COCOBOD also engaged Parliament’s legislative committee, where lawmakers and legal experts reviewed the proposed provisions and recommended changes where necessary.
The bill, he noted, was subsequently considered clause by clause, with provisions amended, deleted or retained following parliamentary scrutiny.
As an example, he pointed to the removal of a provision concerning mining licences on or around cocoa-growing areas.
Mr Sam explained that the original provision would have required anyone who had been granted a mining licence through the appropriate legal process to obtain additional permission from the Chief Executive of COCOBOD.
That requirement, he said, was identified as inconsistent with constitutional provisions and the Minerals and Mining Act, which place Ghana’s mineral resources under the authority of the President.
He said the provision was consequently removed during Parliament’s consideration of the bill.
“If somebody has gone through the right process and has been issued a licence, and then you say that an express permission would have to be granted by the Chief Executive of COCOBOD, then it contradicts provisions in the Constitution,” he explained.
Mr Sam said the removal of the provision demonstrated that Parliament had ample opportunity to examine and modify the legislation before its passage.
He therefore rejected claims that lawmakers were denied adequate time or opportunity to scrutinise the bill.
“If Parliament indeed had not had the opportunity to scrutinise the bill, how would these things have been dealt with?” he asked.
The COCOBOD spokesperson said suggestions that Parliament merely rubber-stamped the legislation risk undermining the credibility of the legislative process and creating a misleading impression about how the bill was considered.
He maintained that the extensive review process, including expert input, committee-level discussions and clause-by-clause consideration, showed that the final legislation had been thoroughly examined before Parliament approved it.
With the bill now awaiting presidential assent, the debate over its implications for Ghana’s cocoa industry is expected to continue, particularly over the balance between protecting cocoa farms and safeguarding the rights and economic interests of farmers.
