Six drag CHRAJ to court

Saturday, March 27, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

SIX persons who were alleged to have been cited in the Mabey & Johnson bribery scandal, have dragged the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) to the High Court praying the court to stop the CHRAJ from investigating or hearing the bribery case.
In an application for judicial review, the six are praying the court to issue an order of prohibition to prevent the CHRAJ from conducting any further hearing into the allegation of corruption in the Mabey & Johnson investigations.
The six — Messrs Kwame Peprah, Alhaji Baba Kamara, Alhaji Boniface Abubakar Saddique, Alhaji Amadu Seidu, Brigadier-General Lord Attivor and Dr Ato Quarshie — were alleged to have compromised themselves during Mabey & Johnson Limited operations in Ghana between 1993 and 2006 but have denied any wrongdoing.
In an application for judicial review, the six accused the Commissioner of CHRAJ, Mr Francis Emil Short, of discussing the pending case before the commission extensively on a Metro TV programme and making very prejudicial statements on the matter.
According to the applicants, Mr Short was quoted on “Good Evening Ghana”, a current affairs programme on Metro TV, as stating that the preliminary objection raised as to the jurisdiction of CHRAJ to investigate private individuals was incompetent and would be dismissed by the Supreme Court.
An affidavit in support of the motion for judicial review, which was sworn on behalf of the applicants by Mr Peprah, stated that it was wrong for the commissioner to state that there was no basis for Alhaji Kamara to raise preliminary objections on the grounds that he (Alhaji Kamara) was not a public official at the time the alleged offence was committed but he (Mr Short) would all the same refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
“That I am advised by counsel that, that ruling delivered by CHRAJ was most improper in that having come to the conclusion that there was an issue for interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, CHRAJ’s only duty was to comply with the provisions of the 1992 Constitution and refer the issue for interpretation of the Constitution to the Supreme Court but not to offer any opinion on same,” the affidavit in support pointed out.
The affidavit further stated that counsel for the applicants raised an objection to the effect that the commission’s mandate as provided under Article 218(e) related to only current public officers and not former public officers.
It said the CHRAJ accordingly adjourned ruling on the issue of whether or not it had jurisdiction to investigate ex-public officers to March 29, 2010.
According to the applicants, the CHRAJ overruled their objection to the appointment of a private legal practitioner to represent the commission and further adjourned its reasons to March 29, 2010.
It further pointed out that a day after the hearing and specifically on Tuesday March 16, 2010, Mr Short, the Head of the CHRAJ panel hearing the case, granted an extensive interview on Metro TV, which lasted an hour, and stated among others that documents he had received from the UK indicated that moneys paid to the applicants were bribes.
Such assertion by Mr Short, according to the applicants, was unfortunate, as he had by his statement already predetermined the case and come to a conclusion that the applicants had received bribes.
“That Commissioner Short in answer to a question from the interviewer inferred that our preliminary objection raised as to whether CHRAJ had the power to investigate ex-public officials was without any basis whatsoever. This was when he stated that ‘the Baba Kamara case is slightly different’.
“The inference was that the case against the ex-public officials which was raised on our behalf would not be referred to the Supreme Court. I am advised by counsel that this was most strange in that CHRAJ had reserved ruling on the case for March 29, 2010,” the affidavit in support stated.
“That Commissioner Short further stated that even though he had referred the issue of whether the CHRAJ could investigate a private person for interpretation to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would dismiss the said preliminary objection.
“Indeed he went into details and explained the objection raised by 2nd Applicant which he described as the ‘the Baba Kamara issue’.
“He added that he could on his own have dismissed the preliminary objection but he had to refer the issue for interpretation only because the Supreme Court is the only body mandated by the Constitution to interpret the Constitution and not because it had any merit.
“Indeed, to a question asked as to whether he was hopeful that the Supreme Court would endorse his view and dismiss the preliminary objection raised he answered in one word ‘definitely’,” the affidavit said.
The applicants said a copy of the recording of the interview had been obtained and a careful perusal of it indicated that Mr Short was most “unprofessional”, as well as intended to incite the public against them.
“That I am advised by counsel and believe same to be true that it is most unprofessional for a judicial or quasi-judicial official such as Commissioner Short to discuss the views of the panel in a pending case before it with a third party and on national television and that the conduct of Commissioner Short, who stated that he was speaking for and on behalf of commission, is such that we cannot be guaranteed a fair hearing before CHRAJ,” the affidavit in support stated.
According to the applicants, their counsel had by a letter dated the March 17, 2010 requested that Mr Short and the commission should cease any further hearing in the matter on the grounds that “CHRAJ by the interview has shown that it is biased and we could not be guaranteed a fair hearing” but stated that the CHRAJ had failed to respond to the letter.
According to the applicants, Mr Short deliberately granted the interview “to incite the public against us. It was done deliberately to put pressure on the Supreme Court to dismiss the preliminary objection which had been referred by CHRAJ itself to the court”.
“That I am advised by counsel that it is improper on the part of Commissioner Short, a quasi-judicial officer, to go on air and discuss the views of chraj sitting on a pending matter in which they are the only adjudicators. We further state that the interview, which to all intends and purpose was voluntary, was without any basis whatsoever, is unwarranted and not supported by any law.
That we are of the firm belief that we cannot be guaranteed a fair hearing and that the CHRAJ be prohibited from any further hearing of the Mabey& Johnson investigation,” the affidavit in support pointed out.
According to the applicants, prohibiting CHRAJ “from investigating us would give meaning to the fact that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be manifestly being done.”