Court stops CHRAJ • From probing M & J scandal

Saturday, June 12, 2010 (Front Page)

THE Human Rights High Court yesterday prohibited the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) from conducting further investigation into the Mabey and Johnson (M&J) bribery scandal involving six personalities.
It also restrained CHRAJ from further hearing the case on the grounds that it was improper for the Commissioner of CHRAJ, Mr Francis Emile Short, to have expressed his opinion on the case on Metro TV, a private TV station.
Granting an application for judicial review filed by counsel for the six persons, the court, presided over by Mr Justice U. P. Dery, held that it was not proper for Mr Short to have stated, among others, that the Supreme Court would dismiss an objection raised by Alhaji Baba Kamara, one of the applicants, on whether or not CHRAJ had the powers to investigate a private person.
Alhaji Kamara and the other applicants, namely, Mr Kwame Peprah, Alhaji Boniface Abubakar Saddique, Alhaji Amadu Seidu, Brigadier-General Lord Attivor and Dr Ato Quarshie, accused Mr Short of extensively discussing the case pending before the commission on a Metro TV programme and making very prejudicial statements on the matter.
In an application for judicial review, the six argued that 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.
According to the court, it was prejudicial for Mr Short to have discussed a matter which was pending before him on air, adding that “he had demonstrated by the interview that CHRAJ was incapable of undertaking a fair and impartial hearing into the case”.
The court further held that the commissioner was the head of CHRAJ and for that reason it could not be argued that he did not grant the interview in his personal capacity.
It further held that it was contradictory for CHRAJ to state that the commissioner was educating the public and in another breath state that he acted in his personal capacity.
Citing authorities, the court stated that Mr Short acted for and on behalf of CHRAJ when he ostensibly discussed the M&J matter on air.
On whether or not CHRAJ was a quasi-judicial body, the court held that the law described CHRAJ as an investigative body and not as quasi-judicial body.
It, therefore, granted the reliefs being sought by the applicants and dismissed the defence put up by CHRAJ.
It, however, declined to award costs against CHRAJ, on the grounds that the matter was of public interest, when counsel for the applicants, Mr Samuel Cudjoe, prayed it to award GH¢10,000 costs against the commission.
The court chastised lawyers for the applicants for not following due processes as set out by the High Court rules, indicating that it decided to look into the matter on its merit, particularly when the public had an interest in it.
In the application for judicial review, the six argued that Mr Short was quoted on “Good Evening Ghana” 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 have stated 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.
It further stated that counsel for the applicants raised an objection to the effect that CHRAJ’s mandate, as provided under Article 218(e), related to only current public officers and not former public officers.
It said CHRAJ, accordingly, adjourned ruling on the issue of whether or not it had jurisdiction to investigate ex-public officers to March 29, 2010, adding that a day after the hearing, 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 other things, that documents he had received from the UK indicated that the moneys paid to the applicants were bribes.
That assertion by Mr Short, according to the applicants, was unfortunate, as he had, by his statement, already predetermined the case and come to the conclusion that the applicants had received bribes.
According to the applicants, prohibiting CHRAJ “from investigating us will give meaning to the fact that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be manifestly being done”.
In an affidavit in opposition, the CHRAJ had argued that there was a clear difference between CHRAJ as an entity and its commissioner.
It said although Mr Short might have granted the said interview, his views were not those of CHRAJ, adding that even if he was disqualified from further investigating the matter, other commissioners would hear the matter in a fair manner. But the court held otherwise.
In a related development, the court, on May 20, 2010, dismissed an application for judicial review filed by a former Minister of Health, Dr George Sipa-Adjah Yankey, praying the court to compel CHRAJ to hear him in the M&J bribery case.
According to the court, it would be prejudicial for it to order CHRAJ to hear Dr Yankey because six other persons affected in the matter had also filed an application praying the court to prohibit CHRAJ from hearing the bribery case in its entirety.