Minister,11 others cited for contempt.

By William Yaw Owusu

Tuesday, 16 May 2006
AN Accra Fast Track High Court yesterday commenced hearing a contempt suit brought against Professor Dominic Fobih, Minister of Lands, Forestry and Mines, and Mr John Otoo, Chief Executive of the Forestry Commission, by the Ghana Association of Forest Plantation Woodmillers and Exporters (GATEX).

The two, together with 10 others had allegedly defied the court’s order restraining the Forestry Commission from carrying out competitive bidding for plantation timber in forest reserves.

The others are Owusu Abebrese, Executive Director; R K Bamfo, Head, Timber Rights Evaluation Unit; Noble Biney; Director of Finance and Administration; Dei Amoah and Mr Edward Ameyaw, all of the Forestry Commission.

The rest are Augustine Arthur, Amo, solicitor of the Commission,Gene Birikong, Peter Boateng, Acting Board Chairman, and the Forestry Commission.

The court, presided over by Mr Justice P.K. Gyaesayor, adjourned the case until May 19 to enable the bailiffs to give evidence following denials by the respondents in their respective affidavits in opposition.

In the suit which brought about the contempt, GHATEX led by its vice-president, Mr Richard Asante-Bediako, claimed that if the Commission was not restrained until proper measures were taken, it would cause irreparable damage to the timber industry and the economy at large.

Moving the motion for contempt, Mr Kwaku Adjei Lartey, counsel for GHATEX, said the respondent had disobeyed or totally disregarded court processes and should be "incarcerated until they purge themselves."

He argued that the respondents’ action had the tendency of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute because they were "fully aware of the pendency of the application."

"This blatant disregard and disobedience of court processes must not be allowed to continue," he prayed the court.

Touching on the Prof. Fobih’s affidavit in response Mr Adjei-Lartey said the Minister had stated that the plaintiff’s application was misconceived and that he did not have knowledge of the court action.

But Mr Adjei-Lartey argued that by granting interview to the media on the bidding process, "it suggests that the Minister knew of the pendency of the contempt application."

He said Mr Otoo’s affidavit in opposition had not demonstrated to the court as to why he should not be cited for contempt.

"He cannot stay in his office and treat the court processes with disrespect," he said.

Counsel further argued that all the other respondents in one way or the other had disregarded and disobeyed the court’s order and should be punished to serve as a deterrent to other officials in respectable positions.

Mr Osei Hwereng, counsel for the respondents, had wanted to respond to the issues raised by Mr Adjei-Lartey but the case was adjourned to enable the bailiffs to testify.