Court to rule in suit against Ministers

By William Yaw Owusu


Friday, April 20, 2007
An Accra Fast Track High Court will on April 26, give judgement in the case in which Kojo Hodare-Okae, a former Deputy Director of Operations of the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS), is citing two ministers for contempt.

It follows the completion of arguments by Mr. Akoto Ampaw, counsel for the applicant and Mr. Joe Ghartey, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice who is one of the ministers cited.

Mr. Hodare-Okae initiated the contempt proceedings against the ministers because the Attorney-General (AG) as a government legal adviser had refused to comply with a court order to reinstate him.

The court presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie had on May 27, 2005 ordered the reinstatement of the applicant and awarded nominal damages of c30,000,000 and c30,000,000 cost in favour of Mr. Hodare-Okae but he claims that the Attorney-General had refused to comply with the court order.

Moving the motion for contempt on Wednesday, Mr. Ampaw, said willful disobedience of a court order is an established principle that the courts take seriously.

He contended that his client had made more efforts to get the matter resolved amicably without invoking the coercive powers of the court but the AG has failed to comply with the court orders.

It has always been the position of the applicant not to get into a battle with the government over the reinstatement but rather to have the matter settled amicably.”

Counsel said they filed the entry of judgement on March 3 and the certificate of judgement was served on the defendants on March 16, saying “they have always been aware of the order to reinstate the plaintiff.”

“To date, the AG has refused to take the necessary steps to ensure that the court’s order is obeyed even though he kept telling us that the matter will be resolved.”

Replying, the AG, Mr. Joe Ghartey, who represented himself told the court that “the applicant’s action is totally misconceived, misplaced and fraudulent because they have not been able to establish that have woefully disobeyed the court’s order.”

He said since a contempt suit is a quasi-criminal matter, there should have been a prima facie case against him before the applicant filed the processes.

“The order to reinstate the applicant was not made against the AG yet the applicant has filed the application as if I have disobeyed a court’s order.”

Mr Ghartey further argued that even though the applicant officially reached compulsory retirement on January 22, he filed the certificate of judgement when he had retired.

He said the State Proceedings Act of 1995 should take care of the court’s judgement against the state, saying “by his non submission, the President is incapable of reinstating him because of Article 119 of the Constitution which talks about compulsory retirement.”

“What he has done is totally misconceived. The application was directed at my person and not the office and this is in a bad faith.”

“It was done at a time when he had retired and if it is his entitlements he is talking about he should have been directed to the Accountant-General’s Department.”

When asked by Justice Baffoe Bonnie of the Court of Appeal, where the plaintiff should be placed by the President, once on retirement, Mr Ghartey said “he is being speculative and has not made any attempt to get his entitlements.”

Mr. Ghartey further asked the court to dismiss the contempt application and award punitive cost against the applicant saying “he brought a totally wrong party to court and is seeking to embarrass the AG in person and not the office.