CHRAJ suspends hearing of Mabey and Johnson case

The Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) on Monday suspended public hearing on the allegation of corruption in the Mabey & Johnson case for the second time, when counsels for five persons accused in the case persistently raised legal arguments over the Commission's jurisdiction to investigate their clients.

Their persistent objection also forced CHRAJ to defer its ruling on an earlier challenge as to whether non-public and ex-public officers should be investigated by the Commission, when it first met to commence public hearing in the case.

Just when the Commissioner, Mr. Emile Short, was about to rule on the earlier objection raised on the said matter, counsel for Mr. Kwame Peprah and Baba Kamara, Mr. Samuel Cudjoe intervened and prayed that the Commission restrains itself from ruling on the said objection, since the matter was before the Supreme Court.

According to him, in respect of a provision order filed by the five counsels at the Supreme Court to stop the Commissioner, Mr. Emile Short, from presiding over the case because of the prejudicial comments he made on Metro Television, ruling on their earlier objection should be shelved pending the decision of the Supreme Court.

“We saw unfairness in the Commissioner's submission and as a result of that we filed an application to prohibit this Commission from further hearing on the matter. This application is pending in court and we believe that it is only fair that the Commission should stay put and wait for the hearing of the Supreme Court to give a determination as to whether what we are saying is true, “ noted Mr. Cudjoe, citing a case between the Republic vrs High Court, Kumasi ex-parte Mobil Oil to further augment his claim.

In the said case, according to Mr. Cudjoe, the Supreme Court after hearing the application for prohibition, held that there was a case and that the High Court Judge shouldn't go ahead with the case because there was a real case of bias. He stated that should the Commission go ahead with its ruling, it would undermine what the High Court will do, adding “that would prevent our complaint from being heard on its merit.”

“Iif you go ahead with the hearing and the Court comes to a conclusion that indeed, we have a good case, then this Commission would have prevented the court from going ahead with hearing and also whatever we would have done would be an exercise in futility”, he emphasized.

Speaking on behalf of his colleague counsels, Mr. Cudjoe further buttressed his argument with Article 219 (2) (a) of the 1992 Constitution which states that; “The Commission shall not investigate a matter which is pending before a court or judicial tribunal.

But in spite of the legal arguments raised by the five counsels, counsel for Dr. Sepa Yankey, Mr. Kwame Djan told the Commission that his client was not part of the group seeking for the Supreme Court to restrain CHRAJ from investigating the case and that he was prepared to testify before the Commission.

Mr. Short however, enquired from him what his position would be if the Commission decides to suspend investigations of the five others. “Mr. Lord, we are not contending the jurisdiction of the Commission. On our part, if the Commission decides to hear us, we are ready to be heard,” he answered.

Mr. Djan was later heard on Joy news explaining that his client's case was different from the other five in the sense that he was a public officer when investigation into the said case commenced.

Mr. Short after conferring with his two deputies and adjourned sitting to April 7th, 2010, when they will give a ruling on whether they could give a verdict on the earlier objection raised against the Commission's jurisdiction to investigate the matter.

The other four counsels who joined in the protest include; Mr. Amissah, counsel for Alhaji Seidu, Mrs Monica Evans Quayson, counsel for Brigadier-General Edward Lord-Attivor, Nana Atto Dadzie, counsel for Mr. Quashie and Alhaji Farouk Sedou, counsel for Alhaji Bubaka Saddique.