EX-MINISTER CASE UP IN SUPREME COURT

THE Supreme Court will on November 14, 2007, rule on an application filed by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) seeking to quash a High Court decision that absolved the former Minister of Transportation, Dr Richard Anane of wrongdoing.
The court fixed the date today after it had listened to submissions made by counsel for the commission and Dr Anane in the case in which the former minister is battling to save his reputation, which an Accra High Court restored when it cleared him of wrongdoing.
The CHRAJ had appealed against the court’s decision at the Court of Appeal but while the appeal is pending it went to the highest court of the land via the instant application to revoke the court’s supervisory jurisdiction in the matter to quash the trial court’s decision.
Dr Anane resigned his post after the commission found him guilty of abuse of power and conflict of interest and recommended that he be removed from office for abusing his office.
The commission recommended, among other things, that Dr Anane should apologise to Parliament for lying under oath and also render another apology to the government for bringing its name into disrepute.
Charges of corruption against the former Minister were dismissed by the commission which found him guilty for lying under oath, after he had told a panel constituted by CHRAJ that he had remitted $30,000 to his mistress.
In a prior testimony to the parliamentary Appointments Committee during his vetting for the position of Roads and Transport Minister in 2005, Dr Anane had told members that he had only remitted $10,000 to his mistress.
After honourably resigning his post before he could be sacked by the President on September 22, 2006, filed a motion at the Fast Track High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the CHRAJ decision because the commission, in purporting to deal with him, lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, acted in breach of the 1992 Constitution, Act 546, the CHRAJ Act 1993 and Constitutional Instrument (CI) 7.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility as a High Court judge absolved Dr Anane of any wrongdoing and quashed the CHRAJ decision against him, declaring it null and void.
Arguing the application at the Supreme Court today, Nene Amegatcher, lead counsel for CHRAJ said the effect of the application was to quash the trial court’s decision that absolved Dr Anane of wrongdoing.
He submitted that the trial judge was invited to look at the true and proper construction of certain provisions in the 1992 Constitution that dealt with the functions of the commission and in the process of doing so the court went into an issue, which was exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court.
Based on that, he said, the application for certiorari was made before the court and if sustained then the Supreme Court ought to give directions to serve as a guide to other courts in the country.
He said CHRAJ could only act when there was an identifiable complainant who must made a written complaint to the commissioner saying that “our case is that on the true and proper interpretation of the constitution and history and why CHRAJ was set up, it is not in all cases that we require a complaint.
“There is the majority of issue which are in the public interest which need no formal complaint from any identifiable person”.
When asked by the court why the commission also assumed the role to interpret the constitution by what it did, counsel admitted that was an error on the part of the commission.
In a further question as to why the commission was asking the court restore its decision since that action was in clear violation of the constitution, Nene Amegatcher replied that the commission had the power to handle the issue.
Asked again what language was ambiguous and needed interpretation by the court, counsel quoted Article 218 (a) and (e) on the functions of the commission and stated that what constituted a complaint ought to be interpreted.
He said the words corruption and abuse of power, for instance, had not been defined in the constitution but they had been used in Article 218 (a) and he was of the belief that abuse of power could end up in corruption.
According to counsel, the imports of the articles in the constitution talked about complaints of corruption and instances of alleged corruption, therefore, clarification needed to be sought from the highest court of the land as to the meaning to serve as a direction to the commission.
Nene Amegatcher agreed with the court that in the Dr Anane case although no formal complaint was made to the commission in the current democratic dispensation, allegations could be made even in the media.
He said the trial judge in purporting to interpret Article 287 (1) of the constitution, misrepresented the issue and gave it a new meaning instead of referring it to the Supreme Court.
Mr J.K. Agyemang, counsel for Dr Anane, prayed the court to dismiss the application since all the relevant provisions in Article 218 and 287 were quite clear and unambiguous.
He argued that just as CHRAJ had the right to apply those provisions, the High Court judge also had every right to apply them and stated that the definition of corruption in the constitution and elsewhere were irrelevant, more especially when his client was not found guilty on those charges.
The Supreme Court was presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Wood with Mr Justice S.A Brobbey, Mr Justice S.K Date-Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah and Mr Justice R.T Aninakwah as the members.
In his ruling Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, said CHRAJ was an inferior investigative body without inherent power and so its action was a wrong assumption of jurisdiction.
Consequently, it ordered that the September 15, 2006 decision and subsequent recommendations against Dr Anane be removed from the register of the commission.
According to the court, certain articles of the 1992 Constitution, such as Article 230 and Act 456, as well as CI 7, were binding on the commission to require an identifiable complainant who should lodge a complaint, either in writing or orally.
“The clear and unambiguous provision of CI 7 is that a complaint made in a newspaper article will not be a basis for investigations by the CHRAJ,” the court ruled, and added that Dr Anane was entitled to a declaration that it was mandatory for the commission to receive a petition or complaint from an identifiable complainant before proceeding with any investigation.
According to the court, “the commission, being an inferior body, is supposed to work within the confines of the law and should not behave like an octopus spreading its tentacles here and there because it has limited powers”.
It said the fact that the commission had in 1995 investigated some ministers of state based on newspaper articles did not make an unlawful act lawful.
“If an error has been done with impunity in the past, it does not have to be entertained and nobody can make what is unlawful lawful,” the court ruled, saying that the commission’s power to investigate was only activated when a complaint was lodged by an identifiable person.
It said for the commission to state that Dr Anane abused his office was a wrong assumption of power and should not be countenanced by the Constitution of the land.
Regarding the commission’s decision relating to perjury, the court ruled that what it should have done, after realising inconsistencies in Dr Anane’s statement to Parliament and the commission, was to refer to them, not to offer sanctions as it did.