COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE vs ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1999]DLSC121

Date	1999-06-23
Suit No.	1 GLR 697
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC121

CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN JSC

AMPIAH JSC

ADJABENG JSC

ATUGUBA JSC

AKUFFO JSC

E K OFOSU-QUARTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

MARTIN A B K AMIDU

DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL (WITH HIM MRS BETTY MOULD-IDDRISU

CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[1999]DLSC121
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">vs<o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0">ATTORNEY-GENERAL<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>[1999-2000]
1 GLR 697<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.0pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black .5pt;padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;
mso-border-shadow:yes">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>E K
OFOSU-QUARTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.MARTIN A B K AMIDU, DEPUTY
ATTORNEY-GENERAL (WITH HIM MRS BETTY MOULD-IDDRISU, CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY) FOR
THE DEFENDANT.___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________CORAM:CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN,
AMPIAH, ADJABENG, ATUGUBA AND AKUFFO JJSC___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________JUDGMENT
OF CHARLES HAYFRON-BENJAMIN<o:p></o:p>Charles
Hayfron-Benjamin JSC delivered the judgment of the court. On 31 July 1998 this
court dismissed the writ of the commission invoking the assistance of this
court to resolve an apparent conflict in the relative positions of the parties
vis-à-vis their respective functions under the Constitution, 1992. For whereas
the plaintiff (Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice) is “In
the performance of (their) functions, not subject to the direction or control
of any person or authority”, the defendant (the Attorney-General) on the other
hand is a member of the executive branch of government and the chief legal
adviser to the government.<o:p></o:p>The
principles of the separation of powers to which to a great extent our
Constitution, 1992 gives support enjoin this court as arbiters of conflicts
within the Constitution, 1992 in the interpretation or enforcement thereof, not
to adopt attitudes and positions which may appear to incline us into proffering
advice on matters which do not come within the ambit of our adversarial
adjudicatory system as sanctioned by our Constitution. The parties to this
litigation are constitutionally independent, yet the plaintiff contends that
their paths may so cross each other as to authorise him to compel the defendant
to take a stand on matters regarding the exercise of the plaintiff’s functions.
Thus by his writ of summons the plaintiff claims against the defendant are:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:
31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">‘‘(a)
A declaration that section 35(2) of the transitional provisions of the
Constitution, 1992 which empowers the plaintiff to restore properties
confiscated by the State, applies to and embraces all confiscations of property
made by the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council and the Provisional National
Defence Council under any Decree or Law made by the council, whether such
confiscations were made by a special court or tribunal such as the Armed Forces
Revolutionary Council Special Court set up under the AFRC (Special Courts)
Decree, 1979 (AFRCD 3) as amended by the AFRC (Special Courts) (Amendment)
Decree, 1978// (AFRCD 19).<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;
margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;border:none;
mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">(b) A declaration that, even assuming,
(which is denied) that the plaintiff has no jurisdiction under the said section
35 (2) of the transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1992 to entertain a
petition for the restoration of confiscated property where the initial
confiscation was made by a special court or other judicial tribunal, the
plaintiff’s power under section 35(2) would become exercisable where the
initial confiscation is later confirmed by a subsequent Decree or Law such as
the Confiscated Assets (Removal of Doubt) Law 1993.”<o:p></o:p>The
plaintiff by his statement of case expounds sections 35(1) and (2) of the
transitional provisions of the Constitution, 1992 in extenso and furnishes by
way of example the case of one Col CR Tachie-Menson (Rtd) in Tr Case ND 780/94
who petitioned the plaintiffs organisation for: “The restoration of his
confiscated properties pursuant to section 35(2) of the transitional provisions
of the Constitution, 1992.” The said Col CR Tachie-Menson contends that he was
acting as our ambassador to Italy in 1979 when on 13 October 1979 it was
published in a state-owned newspaper that he had been sentenced to 25 years’
imprisonment and the assets of his wife and himself had been confiscated to the
</main>