The Head of Public Affairs at the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Jerome Kwame Sam, has challenged claims by the Minority that Parliament rushed the passage of the new cocoa bill.He says the bill went through detailed scrutiny in Parliament, including a clause-by-clause review by lawmakers and legal experts before it was passed.Speaking on Joy News’ PM Express on Monday, Mr Sam said it was therefore difficult to understand the Minority’s continued criticism of the legislation.“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.“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.”The Minority has raised concerns about aspects of the new legislation and questioned the process leading to its passage.However, Mr Sam insists the bill was not drafted solely within COCOBOD but was subjected to expert input and parliamentary scrutiny.“There’s absolutely nothing because look, 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.He explained that the legislation was subsequently taken through Parliament, where its provisions were examined clause by clause.“Clause by clause, the fine lawyers in Parliament were all present. They expressed their views, their opinions, where there should be amendments, there were amendments, where there ought to be complete deletion or expunge. They did say, and all that,” he added.Mr Sam cited changes made to provisions concerning mining activities within cocoa-producing areas as evidence of the scrutiny the bill received.He explained that an initial provision required anyone granted a mining licence to obtain the express permission of the COCOBOD Chief Executive.According to him, that provision was found to conflict with the Constitution and the Minerals and Mining Act.“At first we had in there, whereby even if somebody should be granted a license to mine, the person needed the express permission of the chief executive, and we did find out that it was in contravention with what the constitution, as well as provisions in the Minerals and Mining Act,” he said.He said minerals are vested in the President, while the relevant minister exercises authority to issue mining licences.“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.For Mr Sam, such changes demonstrate why parliamentary scrutiny was necessary.“So if Parliament indeed had not had the opportunity to scrutinize the bill, how would these things have been dealt with?” he asked.He said the suggestion that Parliament had little or no opportunity to properly examine the bill was 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,” he said.Mr Sam also defended the legislation against concerns that it could undermine the interests of cocoa farmers.“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,” he said.He added that the legislation introduces reforms that did not previously exist in the laws governing Ghana’s cocoa sector.“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 said.He maintained that describing the bill as unfit for purpose was difficult to reconcile with its provisions.“So if somebody should come and they label the bill as not fit for purpose or certain provisions in there that are inimical to the interest of the cocoa farmer, then I find it quite difficult to understand where the person is coming from,” he said.