THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL [1999]DLSC7513

Date	1999-06-23
Suit No.	WRIT NO. 3/96
Citation No.	[1999]DLSC7513

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.S.C. (PRESIDING)

AMPIAH J.S.C.

ADJABENG J.S.C.

ATUGUBA J.S.C.

SOPHIA AKUFFO J.S.C

E.K. OFOSU-QUARTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

HON. MARTIN D.K. AMIDU DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL WITH HIM

MRS. BETTY MOULD IDDRISU CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT

[1999]DLSC7513
																																						<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" >THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY GENERAL<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>E.K.
OFOSU-QUARTEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<o:p></o:p>HON.
MARTIN D.K. AMIDU, DEPUTY ATTORNEY-GENERAL WITH HIM<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

MRS. BETTY MOULD IDDRISU, CHIEF STATE
ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT<o:p></o:p>

HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.S.C. (PRESIDING), AMPIAH
J.S.C. , ADJABENG J.S.C., ATUGUBA J.S.C., SOPHIA AKUFFO J.S.C<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">

</div>REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>C.
HAYFRON-BENJAMIN. J.S.C.: <o:p></o:p>On the 31st July, 1998 this Court dismissed
the writ of the Commissioner invoking the assistance of this Court to resolve
an apparent conflict in the relative positions of the parties vis-a-vis their
respective functions under the Constitution. For whereas the Plaintiff
(Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice) is:<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>"In the performance of (their)
functions, not subject to the direction or control of any person or
authority", the Defendant (Attorney-General) on the other hand is a member
of the Executive Branch of Government and Chief Legal Adviser to the
Government. The principles of the separation of powers to which to a great
extent our Constitution gives support enjoin this Court as arbiters of
conflicts within the Constitution 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 Plaintiffs
functions. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Thus by his Writ of Summons the Plaintiff
claims against the Defendant are: <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(a) A declaration that Section 35(2) of the
Transitional Provisions of the 1992 Constitution 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><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>(b) A declaration that, even assuming, (which
is denied) that the Plaintiff has no jurisdiction under the said Section 35(2)
to entertain a petition or 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 in extenso and
furnishes by way of example the case of one Col. C.R. Tachie-Menson (Rtd.) in
Tr. Case No. 780/94 who petitioned the Plaintiff's Organisation for: <o:p></o:p>"The restoration of his confiscated
properties pursuant to Section 35(2) of the Transitional Provisions of the 1992
Constitution.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>&nbsp;The
said Col. C.R. Tachie-Menson contends that he was</main>