[1999]DLSC112 • June 23, 1999 • Supreme Court •
ATTORNEY-GENERAL vs COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE
The Attorney-General challenged the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) for allegedly exceeding its constitutional powers by investigating and enforcing decisions on matters that arose before the 1992 Constitution came into force, including cases pending before the former Ombudsman and dismissals effected by previous military governments. The plaintiff sought injunctions restraining CHRAJ from such conduct, claiming it violated constitutional provisions and transitional clauses.
read moreJUDGMENT OF CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC Charles Hayfron-Benjamin JSC. delivered the judgment of the court. On 31 July 1998 we dismissed the plaintiff’s case. On even date we also dismissed the defendant’s (then the plaintiff’s) case against the Attorney-General (then the defendant) in Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice v Attorney General [1999-2000] 1 GLR 697, SC. The present suit was obviously in reaction to the earlier writ issued by the Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice against the Attorney General wherein, in our view, the constitutional parameters of the commission’s functions were spelled out by us. On hindsight, we should have consolidated the two writs—that is to say, writ No 3/96 and writ No 17/96—and rendered a single judgment which would have covered all the issues raised by the parties. As it happened, we have furnished our reasons for dismissing the commission’s action under writ No 3/96. To the extent, therefore,...