By William Yaw Owusu
Wednesday, 14 March 2007
AN Accra Fast Track High Court has ruled that the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), was wrong in recommending that Dr. Richard Winfred Anane, former Transportation Minister, be relieved of his post.
It has therefore quashed CHRAJ’s recommendation that Dr. Anane be relieved of his position as a Minister of State "for bringing his power and office into disrepute" after it cited him for perjury, conflict of interest as well as abuse of power and office.
On September 15, last year, CHRAJ made the recommendations and further asked Dr. Anane to apologise to the Appointments Committee of Parliament that approved his appointment as a Minister, for lying under oath.
The decisions were reached by the Commission after an 18-month investigation into allegations of corruption, conflict of interest and abuse of power levelled against the former Minister in his dealings with Ms. Alexandria O’Brien, an American with whom Dr. Anane has a child.
Following the recommendations, Dr. Anane filed an application for judicial review on September 22, last year, challenging certain aspects of the decision.
He sought a declaration that the investigation by CHRAJ was "riddled with an irregularity" and a further declaration that there should have been a formal complaint lodged by an identifiable complainant before going ahead to investigate him.
Dr. Anane also prayed the court that another declaration that cited him for perjury was an error and an order of certiorari to quash the commission’s decision.
In his ruling yesterday, which took exactly an hour to read, Justice Paul Baffoe Bonnie of the Court of Appeal said the commission went beyond its mandate in the investigation of Dr. Anane, saying, "Without sounding disrespectful, CHRAJ is an inferior body which has no inherent investigative powers to go about things the way it did in this case."
He said CHRAJ acted in breach of the provisions of the Constitution, the Act of Parliament, as well as Constitutional Instrument 7, and added that "they failed to adhere to laid down procedures before going ahead to investigate the matter."
The court said for instance that, there should have been a complaint lodged by an identifiable complainant before the CHRAJ proceeded to investigate the issue of conflict of interest, abuse of power and office as well as perjury.
He said "It is the court’s view that the applicant is entitled to a declaration that it is mandatory for the commission to receive a formal complaint before investigating him and it has no inherent power to investigate unless there is a formal complaint."
"CHRAJ cannot act like an octopus stretching its tentacles to investigate issues when there is no formal complaint."
On the issue of perjury, the court said CHRAJ should have acted as "observers" but "went beyond just observation by recommending to the Attorney-General to investigate him".
"The applicant was not made aware that he was being investigated for perjury, an issue which was not even part of the work they set out to do yet ended up making far reaching recommendations."
"The findings is afflicted by illegality and procedural impropriety and is thus quashed"
On the charge of conflict of interest and abuse of power, the court held that CHRAJ assumed its jurisdiction wrongly in making the recommendations adding, "There is no dispute about their role but that power can only be activated by a complaint made by an identifiable complainant."
The court said CHRAJ misappreciated Dr. Anane’s concerns saying, "The applicant is not challenging CHRAJ as a body to investigate him but is only concerned about when and how the investigations should have been done."
The court dismissed CHRAJ’s argument that the commission could carry out investigations or initiate its own investigations when there has not been any formal complaint saying, "Even if the law should be ammended to give them such powers that will be a recipe for chaos."
While J.K. Agyemang, counsel for Dr. Anane, prayed the court to award substantial cost against CHRAJ, Dr. Philip Ebow Bondzie-Simpson, counsel for the commission argued that in the circumstances the applicant was not entitled to cost.
Subsequently, the court did not award any cost against CHRAJ.
Later, in an interview, with the Times, Ms Anna Bossman, the acting Commissioner of CHRAJ, who was among the large audience that thronged the court, said that "the issues that the court has raised are subject to appeal as there are major mistakes in the ruling.
"We do not agree with the court’s decision and will immediately apply for the ruling to know our next line of action."
However, she said, "for a citizen to challenge the decisions of a commission such as CHRAJ in a law court is evidence that we are growing in the rule of law."
After the ruling, Dr. Anane quickly drove away, but his family members as well as other well-wishers were seen jubilating at the court’s premises.
No comments:
Post a Comment