[1999]DLSC16008 • June 23, 1999 • Supreme Court •
ATTORNEY-GENERAL vs. CHRAJ
The Attorney-General filed a writ seeking to restrain the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) from allegedly unconstitutional conduct, including investigating and enforcing decisions on matters predating the 1992 Constitution. The CHRAJ had taken actions on complaints and cases that arose before the Constitution's commencement, including those pending before the former Ombudsman and cases involving dismissals by previous military governments. The Attorney-General contended that such actions were ultra vires and violated constitutional provisions, particularly transitional provisions and article 229 of the 1992 Constitution.
read moreCHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC delivered the ruling of the court. On 31 July 1998 we dismissed the plaintiff's claim in the instant action, ie Writ No 17/96 against the defendant, the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice. On the same date we also dismissed the defendant's (then the plaintiff's) earlier claim against the Attorney-General in Writ No 3/96 reported as Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (No 1) v Attorney-General (1998- 99] SCGLR 871 ante. The present suit was obviously in reaction to the said earlier writ issued by the Commission for Human Rights and Administra9ve Justice against the Attorney-General, wherein, in our view, the constitutional parameters of the commission's functions were spelled out by us. On hind sight, 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 already f....