Amina Abdalla

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 941 to 950 of 2343.

• 28 Oct 2014 in National Assembly: Hon. Chairlady, if you look at sub-clause 4 of our amendment it reads, “The Cabinet Secretary shall notify the applicant in writing, whether the application has been accepted or rejected.” The approval process under sub-clause 3 envisions that even if the Cabinet Secretary was to reject the recommendation of the Mining Rights Board, he has to communicate his reasons and his reasons can only be the following:- Where it is based on Government policy; for the protection of public interest; and where the Mineral Rights Board overlooked certain information. We have dealt with communication; that it will be in writing ... view
• 28 Oct 2014 in National Assembly: Hon Chairlady, I actually think my secretariat is the source of this confusion. The conditions under which the Cabinet Secretary can approve are in our explanatory notes, but it was an amendment that we had already rejected because of the justification that hon. Oner is speaking to. So, part (4) is not on the Order Paper as stated. It is the justification document that has been done; that is not on the Order Paper. view
• 28 Oct 2014 in National Assembly: He is talking on a document that is not before the House. view
• 28 Oct 2014 in National Assembly: Hon. Chairlady, I beg to move:- THAT, Clause 33 be amended− (a) in subclauses (1) and (2) by deleting the words “ and a certificate”; and (b) by deleting sub-clauses (3), (4) and (5). The first one is to delete the word “certificate”. It is the opinion of the experts and the Committee that the provision of a certificate be deleted because a licence or permit is sufficient evidence of a mineral right. So, that is why we are deleting the word “certificate”. We are also deleting sub-clauses 3, 4 and 5 because as you note, in Clause The electronic ... view
• 28 Oct 2014 in National Assembly: 32, we have given all the conditions for providing for a mineral right. That is all in large- scale mining. So, the current Clause 33(3), (4) and (5) are no longer relevant. view
• 28 Oct 2014 in National Assembly: Hon. Chairlady, he has given the answer I would have given. view
• 28 Oct 2014 in National Assembly: Hon. Chairlady, I beg to move:- THAT, Clause 34 be amended− (a) by deleting the words “The Cabinet Secretary shall, prior to granting a mineral right authorising prospecting or mining operations, require the applicant to seek-” appearing in sub-clause (2) and substituting therefor the following new words─ (2) The Mineral Rights Board shall, prior to recommending to the Cabinet Secretary the grant of a Mineral Right, require the applicant to seek− (b) by deleting paragraph (a) in sub-clause (2) and substituting therefor the following new paragraph– (a) approval of the National Land Commission in relation to public land; The electronic ... view
• 28 Oct 2014 in National Assembly: (c) in sub-clause (2) by deleting the words “the consent” appearing in paragraphs (b) and (c) and substituting therefor the word “approval”; and (d) sub-clause (2) paragraph (g) by deleting the marginal note. This is appreciating that the functions previously given to the Cabinet Secretary would be done by the Mineral Rights Board. The second one is to ensure that all consents are approved by the National Land Commission in relation to public land. view
• 28 Oct 2014 in National Assembly: Hon. Chairlady, I beg to move:- view
• 28 Oct 2014 in National Assembly: THAT, Clause 35 be amended by– (a) deleting the words “mineral rights” wherever they appear in this clause and substituting therefor the words “prospecting and mining rights” (b) inserting in sub-clause (1) the words “and such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld” immediately after the word “owner”; and (c) renumbering the Clause “2” as “3”. The import of this amendment is that we do not envision that somebody would need consent if they are doing a reconnaissance licence that requires a non- intrusive look into somebody’s land such as doing some airborne activities. So, we are re-proposing that instead of ... view