Thursday, November 22, 2007

CHRAJ Case : Supreme Court decides December 21

November 22, 2007 (Page 49)

Story: Mabel Aku Baneseh

THE Supreme Court will, on December 21, 2007, decide whether or not the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) can investigate matters based on media reports and not through a formal complaint.
The court fixed the date after counsel for CHRAJ and Dr Richard Anane, a former Minister of Transportation, had submitted their written addresses on what constituted complaint and at what point CHRAJ could investigate an issue.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Joe Ghartey, also submitted a written address on the orders of the Supreme Court which had directed him to also address the court on the matter, although he was not a party to the suit between CHRAJ and Dr Anane.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, counsel for CHRAJ, Nene Amegatcher, maintained that the Constitution gave it the powers to investigate complaints formally brought before it, as well as go further to investigate informal complaints.
However, counsel for Dr Anane, Mr J.K. Agyemang, argued that CHRAJ had no authority to do that.
He further maintained that CHRAJ could not assume responsibility for what had not been given to it.
For his part, the Attorney-General said he was focusing on public policy, which literally meant that there ought to be a formal complaint before an authority could investigate a matter.
He said the Constitution gave many institutions of state and not CHRAJ alone the powers to investigate issues.
Submissions by counsel for the parties were very brief because the court had ordered them to submit written addresses, which they did.
The court, on October 30, 2007, unanimously upheld the decision of the High Court which quashed the findings of perjury and conflict of interest by CHRAJ against Dr Anane.
It, however, upheld an application filed by CHRAJ which challenged the decision of the High Court judge to interpret ‘complaint’ in Article 21 (a) of the 1992 Constitution.
According to the court, which was presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Wood, “that decision is in conflict with the exclusive jurisdiction of this court, under Article 30 of the 1992 Constitution, to interpret the Constitution”.
The court, which had Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Dr Justice Date Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah and Mr Justice R. T. Aninakwah as members, therefore, decided to interpret ‘complaint’ and give its judgement on it.
“In relation to Article 21 (a) of the 1992 Constitution, this court is exercising the powers of the trial court to refer to the Supreme Court the following issue which has arisen from the facts of this case for determination, pursuant to article 130 (2):
“For a complaint within the meaning of Article 218 (a) of the 1992 Constitution to form the basis for investigation by CHRAJ, must it be made by an identifiable individual or corporate body and lodged with the commission or are complaints made through the media and other public fora regarding violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, injustice, corruption, abuse of power and unfair treatment of any person by a public officer in the exercise of his official duties adequate bases for the institution of investigation by CHRAJ?”
The CHRAJ had filed an application praying the Supreme Court to quash the decision of the High Court which quashed findings of perjury and conflict of interest against Dr Anane.
But the Supreme Court held a different view and stated that it would give its reasons for its orders in its final judgement after the parties had made legal arguments on the matter.
It, accordingly, asked the Attorney-General, CHRAJ and Dr Anane to submit written legal arguments on the issue to the Supreme Court within 14 days.
The CHRAJ, some time last year, made adverse findings of conflict of interest, abuse of office and perjury against Dr Anane.
Dissatisfied with CHRAJ’s findings, Dr Anane contested them at the High Court where CHRAJ’s decisions were quashed.
However, CHRAJ took the matter to the Supreme Court for its decisions to be reaffirmed.

No comments: