Anane Wins Round 2
Five Supreme Court Judges yesterday unanimously upheld the decision of Justice Paul Baffoe–Bonnie in quashing the case brought by the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) against the former Minister for Roads and Transport, Dr. Richard Anane, over the interpretation of its finding of perjury.
The Justices as well refused to grant the certiorari by the appellant commission challenging the decision of the High Court in relying on Article 287(1) of the 1992 Constitution to quash the findings of conflict of interest against Dr Anane as earlier on arrived at by CHRAJ .
The learned judges were however of the opinion that Justice Baffoe-Bonnie should not have interpreted the word “complaint” against Anane in article 218(a) of the 1992 Constitution since the power of constitutional interpretation was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 130 of the 1992 Constitution.
They therefore ordered that the meaning of the word “complaint” in Article 218 (1) of the 1992 Constitution should be referred to them for interpretation.
In addition, they ordered the Attorney-General, CHRAJ and the former Minister who is also the Member of Parliament for Nhyiaeso to submit written legal arguments on the issue referred to the Supreme Court.
The case has been adjourned to November 21, 2007 for oral arguments on the reference.
The Judges were Justices R.T. Aninakwa, Date-Baah, Julius Ansah, S.A. Brobbey and the Chief Justice, Georgina Wood, who presided over the hearing.
According to the Judges, full reasons for their orders would be embodied in the judgments to be delivered on the reference.
It would be recalled that on March 13, 2007, a Fast-Track High Court presided over by Justice Baffoe-Bonnie overturned the ruling of CHRAJ on Dr Anane, describing it as null and void.
It dismissed the Commission's pronouncement on its investigations of corruption, conflict of interest and abuse of power, saying the commission erred in law.
Justice Baffoe-Bonnie therefore ordered that decisions from the proceedings and particularly the recommendations be removed entirely from the registration because CHRAJ did not follow its own procedure.
Nene Amegatse, counsel for CHRAJ, had earlier admitted that there was no formal complaint against Dr Anane but argued that the Commission was right in investigating the former Minister because CHRAJ did not always have to rely on formal complaints.
He explained that allegations in newspapers could be investigated by the Commission.
The investigation of the Commission indicated that even though Anane had committed perjury by lying about the amount of remittances made to an ex-girlfriend, Alexandria O'Brien and his son Nicholas in the United States, they cleared Anane of any act of corruption.
CHRAJ after the trial Judge had quashed its findings took the matter to the Supreme Court on appeal.
The former Minister was represented by Stephen and Seth Agyemang.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Joe Ghartey was also in court to witness proceedings.
By Fidelia Achama