June 30,2011 (Page 3 Lead)
The Human Rights Court has prohibited the government and the Civil Service Council from proceeding with investigations against a former Director of the Ministry of Youth and Sports and another over the disbursement and loss of $30,000 at the ministry.
The court also declared that the purported investigations being undertaken by the Civil Service Council into the alleged disbursement and loss of $30,000 and the invitation to the two to appear before the so-called fact-finding committee of the council were 'actuated by bias and prejudice and, therefore, unlawful and a gross infringement of the applicants' fundamental human right to a fair hearing under Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution'.
According to the court, the Civil Service Council had demonstrated that it did not have an impartial mind to conduct investigations against Mr Albert Anthony Ampong, a former Chief Director, and Mr Adim Odoom, a former Principal Accountant, both of the Ministry of Youth and Sports.
The legal tussle between the applicants and the council began on July 7, 2009 when the two were interdicted for their alleged disbursement of $20,000 and $10,000 to a former Minister of Youth and Sports, Alhaji Muntaka Mohammed Mubarak.
The two applicants reported the conduct of Alhaji Mubarak to the President, resulting in the National Security Council taking over investigations.
The two were found culpable after investigations.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of investigations, their lawyer, Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, filed an application for judicial review on their behalf.
In December 2009, the Accra Fast Track High Court, in two separate rulings, held that the interdiction of the two was illegal and, accordingly, quashed an order directed at them to refund $30,00 to the state coffers.
The court held that the sanctions must not be applied against the two based on the national security report which it described as 'flawed'.
According to the court, due process was not followed and for that reason it was inappropriate for sanctions to be applied against the two because they had neither been investigated nor charged for any offence.
The applicants resumed work as ordered by the court, but the Civil Service Council, by a letter dated March 31, 2010, interdicted them and indicated its intention to conduct investigations into their conduct in the disbursement of the $30,000.
The two, however, instituted legal action, resulting in the Human Rights Court, on November 8, 2010, declaring the decision of the Civil Service Council as unlawful.
Despite the Human Rights Court's directive, the Civil Service Council decided to embark on a fact-finding mission but the court held that from its letters to the applicants, it was clear that the Civil Service had not conducted fresh investigations and it was, therefore, relying on the flawed National Security report to conduct the said investigations into the disbursement of the $30,000.
'It was simply carrying forward the President's directives, which were declared unlawful by the Fast Track Division of this court,' the court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery, held.
Citing authorities to support its decision, the court held that the council simply wanted a way to rubber-stamp the National Security investigations and the President's directives which said the two should be interdicted.
According to the court, the findings of fact against the applicants by the Civil Service Council were the same conclusions the National Security Council had arrived at, adding, 'It is obvious that this fact-finding committee is a ruse. It is not a genuine, impartial, fact-finding committee.'
It further held that the applicants would not be given a fair hearing, which would be a violation of their right to administrative justice pursuant to Article 23 of the Constitution, pointing out that the applicants were, therefore, entitled to be protected under Article 33 of the Constitution.
The court awarded costs of GH¢6,000 against the Civil Service Council.
No comments:
Post a Comment