The M&J bribery scandal case - Court decides on CHRAJ June 11

Saturday, June 5, 2010 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Human Rights Court will, on June 11, 2010, decide whether or not to prohibit the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) from further investigating six persons who are alleged to have been cited in the Mabey & Johnson (M&J) bribery scandal.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice U. P. Dery, fixed the date at the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday after it emerged that parties in the case had filed the necessary papers, paving the way for the court to fix a date for its ruling.
The applicants 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 M&J investigations.
Mr Kwame Peprah, Alhaji Baba Kamara, Alhaji Boniface Abubakar Saddique, Alhaji Amadu Seidu, Brigadier-General Lord Attivor and Dr Ato Quarshie accused the Commissioner of CHRAJ, Mr Francis Emile Short, of discussing the case pending before the commission extensively on a Metro TV programme and making very prejudicial statements on the matter but CHRAJ has denied any wrongdoing and maintained that irrespective of the alleged interview, it will be fair to the six applicants.
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.
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.
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 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.
“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’.
According to the applicants, Mr Short further stated that although he had referred the issue of whether or not CHRAJ could investigate a private person for interpretation to the Supreme Court, the court would dismiss the said preliminary objection, which he himself would have done if he had the mandate to do so. That statement, according to the applicants, was most unfortunate.
They further argued that it was 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 the commission, was such that they could not be guaranteed a fair hearing before CHRAJ.
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, CHRAJ 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 that of CHRAJ, adding that even if he was disqualified from further investigating the matter, other commissioners would hear the matter in a fair manner.