Judge Stops Probe
The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has been ordered by an Accra Human Rights Court to stop any investigations into the alleged Mabey and Johnson bribery scandal in which some senior officials of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) have been hauled before the commission.
The court noted that although CHRAJ has the investigating powers to probe the NDC gurus, in this particular one, it cannot exercise its power because it was bound to show bias against the six officials who were under investigations following certain pronouncements made by Commissioner Emile Short on Metro TV, an Accra-based private television station.
The six officials are Kwame Peprah, former Minister of Finance and Economic Planning, Alhaji Baba Kamara, Ghana's High Commissioner to Nigeria, Alhaji Abubakar Sadique Boniface, former Minister of works and Housing, Alhaji Amadu Seidu, former Minister of State at the Presidency, Brigadier-General Lord Attivor (rtd), Managing Director of Intercity STC and Dr. Ato Quarshie, former Minister of Roads and Highways. The officials, who believe they would not receive fair hearing, filed an application for an order of prohibition to restrain CHRAJ from continuing to hear the M&J case.
Justice U.P. Dery granted the request of the applicants when he looked into the merit of the case even though he noted that they did not follow the due processes in filing their application.
Justice Dery, who described CHRAJ as an investigative body and not 'quasi judicial', indicated that it was prejudicial for Commissioner Short, who is also the chairman of the panel conducting the investigation, to have gone on air while the case was pending before the commission.
CHRAJ had argued that although the commissioner was on television, he did not say anything to prejudice the case but was fulfilling his constitutional mandate of educating the public on what the investigation entailed so that people will not misinterpret the decision of the commission.
However, the court observed that this assertion could not be true because in the said interview, Mr Short talked about the M&J case, making references to documents in his possession and also expressed his view that monies paid to the applicants were bribe monies.
The judge said for Commissioner Short to have made such pronouncements, it was possible that he would not give the applicants a fair hearing; therefore in the interest of justice, CHRAJ could not be allowed to hear the matter.
The judge dismissed the assertion by CHRAJ that irrespective of the interview granted, the commission would be fair to the applicants because there was a difference between the commission as an entity and the commissioner, indicating that Mr. Short did not act in his personal capacity but as the commissioner, and that whatever he does affects the commission.
The judge explained that the commissioner and his two deputies have the power to take decisions on behalf of the commission as enforced by Parliament; therefore, the commissioner could not have acted in his own personal capacity.
Counsel for the applicants had wanted the court to award cost of GH¢10,000 against CHRAJ but the judge refused on grounds that the case was in the public interest.
It is the case of the applicants that on March 16, 2010, the commissioner, who is the head of the panel hearing the matter, granted an extensive interview on Good Evening Ghana, programme on Metro TV, a TV station with extensive coverage, both nationwide and internationally, and discussed the Mabey and Johnson investigations in detail.
According to them, Commissioner Short, who said CHRAJ had invoked the mutual legal assistance and requested the United Kingdom authorities for evidence, allegedly stated that the document before CHRAJ revealed that the monies paid to the public officials were bribes.
To them, that pronouncement showed that the commissioner had already predetermined the issue that any monies paid were bribes.
"This was strange, in that CHRAJ was to determine whether any monies were paid and if paid whether any such monies paid were bribes".
The officials observed that the said interview was deliberate to incite the public against them and put pressure on the Supreme Court to dismiss the preliminary objection which had been referred by CHRAJ itself to the court.
They stated that although they have written a letter to the commission on the said issues, the commission had failed to reply to it.
They argued that if the court prohibited CHRAJ from hearing the case, it would give meaning to the assertion that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be manifestly done.
In response, CHRAJ said irrespective of the interview granted, the commission would be fair to the applicants because there was a difference between the commission as an entity and the commissioner as a person.