EOCO Files For Stay Of Execution

Wednesday, July 6, 2011 (Front Page)

The Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has filed for a stay of execution of a court order which directed it to pay GH¢59,000 being damages and costs to the Ghana Football Association (GFA).

The Human Rights Court on May 13, 2011 declared that the EOCO had no legal standing to investigate the GFA, since the GFA was a private entity.

It accordingly ordered the 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 the 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 court’s ruling, the EOCO filed an application praying the Human Rights Court to stay execution of its order, pending the outcome of its appeal.

Before counsel for the EOCO, Dr Philip Anderson, could move the motion for stay of execution at the court’s sitting yesterday, counsel for the GFA, Mr Thaddeus Sory, raised a preliminary objection that the EOCO should have come under Court of Appeal rules and not under the High Court rules.

He explained 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 colleague’s application, Dr Anderson argued that the Human Rights Court had the jurisdiction to hear the matter.

He further argued that the EOCO was not seeking for stay of execution solely to pursue the appeal because the EOCO was under government subvention and for that reason the immediate payment of the GH¢59,000 would severely cripple EOCO’s operations.
Counsel explained that the EOCO would suffer harshly if it was made to pay the amount before the appeal was determined because the EOCO was not financially resourced.

In its appeal, the EOCO is arguing that the damage imposed on it by the Human Rights Court was excessive and could cripple the function of the EOCO which was on government subvention.

The EOCO 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 EOCO’s 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.

It said the state could not say it had financial interest in the GFA, for which it wanted to investigate the GFA.

The court further contended that the state could be said to have financial interest in an institution when the state funded the running of that institution and expected dividend from it.

It also declared that the court order obtained by EOCO and the subsequent seizure of the GFA's documents and computers were illegal and wrong.

Besides, the court held that EOCO had violated the GFA's right to privacy, property and work.