Court denies EOCO's appeal for stay

July 20, 2011 (Page 3 lead)

THE Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) suffered another setback yesterday when the Human Rights Court dismissed its application for stay of execution of the courtÕs order to pay GH¢59,000 in damages and costs to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).EOCOÕs first setback was on May 13, 2011 when the same court declared that it had no legal standing to investigate the GFA, since the GFA was a private entity, and, accordingly, ordered EOCO to pay GH¢50,000 in damages and GH¢9,000 in costs to the GFA.It gave the order after studying the application for enforcement of fundamental human rights filed by the GFA following the seizure of documents and computers from its offices by EOCO through a court order in December last year.Dissatisfied with the courtÕs ruling, EOCO filed an application praying the Human Rights Court to stay execution of its order, pending the outcome of its appeal.Counsel for the GFA, Mr Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection that EOCO should have gone for the appeal under the Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules.On July 5, 2011, counsel had argued that Rule 27 of C.I. 19 of the Court of Appeal Rules gave the base for an application for stay of execution pending appeal.Opposing his opponentÕs application, counsel for EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, argued that the Human Rights Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.He further argued that EOCO was not seeking for stay of execution solely to pursue the appeal because it was under government subvention and for that reason the immediate payment of the GH¢59,000 would severely cripple its operations.Counsel explained that EOCO would suffer harshly if it was made to pay the amount before the appeal was determined because the office was not financially resourced.In a terse ruling, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Uuter Paul Dery, upheld counsel for the GFAÕs preliminary objection that EOCO should have gone under the Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules. In its appeal, EOCO is arguing that the damage imposed on it by the Human Rights Court was excessive and could cripple its functions.It is also arguing that the lower court did not apply the law properly in giving its ruling.On May 13, 2011, the Human Rights Court disagreed with EOCOÕs assertion that it had the power to investigate criminal matters, including tax fraud and money laundering, and could exercise emergency powers, for which reason it did not err in conducting the search on the GFA premises. It also held that since the GFA was not a quasi-state body under the laws of Ghana, the seizure of its documents and computers by EOCO constituted abuse of power and a violation of its rights.It noted that the financial support that the government extended to the GFA did not make it a quasi-state body, adding that the state could not say it had financial interest in the GFA, for which it wanted to investigate the GFA.