Dr. R W Anane, Ghana's former Minister of Transportation
By William Yaw Owusu
Thursday August 2, 2007
THE Supreme Court will on November 14, give its ruling in the case in which the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) is seeking to overturn a High Court ruling that said the Commission was wrong in recommending that Dr Richard Winfred Anane, former Minister of Transportation be relieved of his post.
The five member panel presided over by the Chief Justice, Georgina Wood, fixed the date after hearing arguments from the parties.
An Accra Fast Track High Court presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, now with the Court of Appeal, quashed CHRAJ’s recommendation on September 15, last year which among other things said Dr Anane should be relieved of his position as a Minister of State “for bringing his power and office into disrepute.
The CHRAJ had cited Dr Anane for perjury, conflict of interest as well as abuse of power and office.
The Commission further recommended that Dr Anane aplogised to the Appointments Committee of Parliament that approved his appointment as a Minister, for lying under oath.
The decision was reached after an 18-month investigation into allegations of corruption, conflict of interest and abuse of power leveled against the former Minister in his dealings with Ms Alexandra O’Brien, an American with whom Dr Anane has a child.
Dr Anane also filed an application for judicial review on September 22, last year, challenging certain aspects of CHRAJ’s decision which the High Court upheld, described CHRAJ as an “inferior body which has no inherent investigative powers to go about things the way it did.”
The court further said “CHRAJ acted like an Octopus stretching its tentacles to investigate issues where there is no formal complaint.”
Moving the motion yesterday, Nene Amegatcher, counsel for CHRAJ submitted that the trial court erred in touching on matters that were outside its jurisdiction.
He said some of the issues tried by the High Court bordered on constitutional interpretation which was within the domain of the Supreme Court and not the High Court.
“It is our opinion that the trial judge was invited to look at a constitutional issue but the true and proper interpretation of certain provisions of the constitution should be done by this court.
Mr Amegatcher further told the court that the issue tried by the High Court was to look at the functions of CHRAJ saying “it was an issue which was exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court and should have been referred to it by the High Court.”
“We are praying the Supreme Court to grant our certiorari to quash the High Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court should then give direction as to the interpretation of the constitution, and this direction will be binding on all courts.”
“Our case is that on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution with regards to the history and the reasons for the establishment of the CHRAJ, it is not all cases that require formal complaint from an identifiable person.”
When the Chief Justice enquired why CHRAJ assumed the interpretation of the constitution, Mr Amegatcher admitted that it was an error on the part of CHRAJ, but insisted that CHRAJH had the power to assume the interpretation.
He further argued that the Supreme Court had the power to interprete clearly Article l218(a) and (e) which defines the powers of CHRAJ if issues of violations came up.
He said the phrases, corruption and ‘abuse of power’ had not been clearly defined by the constitution saying “in our democratic dispensation allegations can be made in the media.”
Nene Amegatcher said it was not in dispute that no formal complaint was made before CHRAJ investigated Dr Anane but “on the face of it, there is no ambiguity for the trial court to quash the recommendations.”
When J.K. Agyemang, counsel for Dr Anane took his turn he said the provisions of Article 218 and 287 were clear on what CHRAJ needed to do but it failed to follow proper procedure in investigation the former Minister.
“Just as CHRAJ had the power to apply them but failed, the trial court also had the power to put things right.”
He said whether or not there should have been an identifiable complaint was not the issue at stake but what was relevant was the issue of conflict of interest, abuse of power and perjury which he said CHRAJ later withdrew.
Mr Agyemang insisted that CHRAJ’s investigation was “riddled with an irregularity and errors” and urged the Supreme Court to dismiss CHRAJ’s application.
Other members on the panel were Justices S.A. Brobbey, S.K. Donteh-Bah, Julius Ansah and R.T. Aninakwah
No comments:
Post a Comment