JOSEPH R. ARTHUR AND ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPT. [2000]DLCHRAJ5770

Date	2000-08-30
Suit No.	Our Ref: CHRAJ/276/98/1544
Citation No.	[2000]DLCHRAJ5770

BENJAMIN K. OPPONG

[2000]DLCHRAJ5770
																																						<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" >JOSEPH R. ARTHUR <o:p></o:p>(COMPLAINANT)<o:p></o:p>AND<o:p></o:p>ATTORNEY GENERAL'S DEPT. <o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENT)<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center;
mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">(CHRAJ)<o:p></o:p>

Our
Ref: CHRAJ/276/98/1544&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DATE: 30/08/2000<o:p></o:p>

</div>commissioner:<o:p></o:p>BENJAMIN K. OPPONG DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER LEGAL/OPERATIONS <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:#1F1F00">FOR <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:#111100">COMMISSIONER<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DECISION<o:p></o:p>

</div><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:#0D0D0D;mso-themecolor:text1;
mso-themetint:242">This plaint was lodged by Joseph Arthur one time a Senior
Accountant of the Tourist Development Company Limited. He has now lost his job.
It all began on the 27 July 1988 when he was arrested and sent to the
Headquarters of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) for questioning.
Three days later he was transferred to the James Fort Prison where he remained
in custody for two years and seven months, at the end of which period he was
asked to go home.<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:#0D0D0D;mso-themecolor:text1;
mso-themetint:242">According to the complainant he came back home to find that
his investment in poultry, piggery, palm plantation and the education of his
children had been thrown into disarray.<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:#0D0D0D;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-themetint:242">The complainant sued the
Government of Ghana and the BNI for damages in the High Court. A preliminary
point of law was raised by the Attorney General to set the writ aside on the
grounds that the action was caught by the provision of Section 34(1) and (5) of
the Transitional Provisions of the 1992. Constitution.<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:#0D0D0D;mso-themecolor:text1;
mso-themetint:242">Those constitutional provisions provided an indemnity to
acts or omissions of the PNDC and its agents during the revolutionary era of
December 1979 to January 1992.<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:#0D0D0D;mso-themecolor:text1;
mso-themetint:242">The learned High Court Judge ruled that the jurisdiction of
the High Court had effectively been taken away by those provisions in cases
where an aggrieved person was seeking relief for tortuous acts done against him
by the PNDC as its agent as was the case of the complainant. The writ of summons
against the Government and the BNI was therefore struck out for want of
jurisdiction.<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:#0D0D0D;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-themetint:242">The complainant then
wrote to the Attorney General to compensate him for his loses. In a letter
dated 14th January 1998 the Attorney General advised the complainant to
petition this Commission. He did and this decision is in respect of that
petition.<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:#0D0D0D;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-themetint:242">In accordance with the
Commissions procedures the compalaint was sent to the<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:#0D0D0D;mso-themecolor:text1;
mso-themetint:242">Attorney Generals Office, for comments. In its response the
respondents apologized for the letter of 14th January 1998 which claims that it
had been issued in error.<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:#0D0D0D;mso-themecolor:text1;mso-themetint:242">The Attorney General
challenged the jurisdiction of this Commission to take on the case because the
complainant action instituted in the High Court had been struck out because of
the provisions of the Transitional Provisions of the 1992 Constitution. The
Attorney General was further of the view that the complainant's incarceration
was lawful.<o:p></o:p>