SAMUEL APPIAH AMPOFO vs. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE (CHRAJ) [2005]DLSC2414

SAMUEL APPIAH AMPOFO vs. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE (... [2005]DLSC2414

Date	2005-07-20
Suit No.	REF. NO. J6/3/2004
Citation No.	[2005]DLSC2414

ACQUAH C.J.

MISS AKUFFO J.S.C.

DR. TWUM J.S.C

DR. DATE-BAH J.S.C

PROF. OCRAN J.S.C.

AYIKOI OTOO ATTORNEY-GENERAL WITH JOE GHARTEY IVY VANDERPUYE

MAAME SAAH ODURO FRIMPONG

GIFTY ODOI ANIM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

ATTA AKYEA FOR THE PLAINTIFF.

DR. BOADZI SIMPSON FOR THE DEFENDANT.

[2005]DLSC2414
																																						<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" >SAMUEL APPIAH AMPOFO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE
(CHRAJ)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME
COURT]<o:p></o:p>REF.&nbsp; NO. J6/3/2004<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">

DATE: 20TH JULY 2005.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>AYIKOI
OTOO ATTORNEY-GENERAL WITH JOE GHARTEY, IVY VANDERPUYE, MAAME SAAH ODURO
FRIMPONG, GIFTY ODOI ANIM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;ATTA AKYEA FOR THE PLAINTIFF.<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">

&nbsp;DR. BOADZI SIMPSON FOR THE DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <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">

ACQUAH,
C.J., MISS AKUFFO, J.S.C., DR. TWUM, J.S.C., DR. DATE-BAH, J.S.C., PROF. OCRAN,
J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;DR. SETH TWUM, J.S.C.:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The Defendant, (hereinafter called “the
Commission”) investigated a complaint of corruption lodged by Mr. Kweku Baako,
Editor of Crusading Guide, against the Plaintiff.&nbsp; At the conclusion of the investigations the
Commission made adverse findings against the Plaintiff and made a number of
recommendations including.<o:p></o:p>(a) that Mr. Appiah Ampofo be barred
forthwith from holding any public office.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(b) that he should be barred from membership
of any Insurance Institution or Association.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(c) that the Attorney-General should consider
bringing criminal prosecution against Mr. Appiah Ampofo for corruption.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p>Even
though under Article 218 of the Constitution, if the Commission desires that
its recommendations should be enforced, it must apply to the court for
appropriate orders, the Plaintiff did not wait for such proceedings to be
mounted by the Commission.&nbsp; Rather he
issued a Writ of Summons in the High Court and sought a declaration, inter
alios, “that the decision of the Defendant dated the 5th April 2002, which made
adverse findings against the Plaintiff is absurd, perverse, illogical and
unreasonable to the effect that it cannot stand in law and same should be set
aside by the Honourable Court”.<o:p></o:p>At
the Summons for Directions the following issues amongst others were set down
for trial.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(g) “Whether or not the Defendant was properly
constituted when it purported to adjudicate the matters concerning the
Plaintiff”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(h) “Whether or not by reason of (g) above the
Defendant lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter affecting the
Plaintiff”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The learned trial judge made the primary
finding that there was no doubt that the functions of the Commission were
purely investigative.&nbsp; Further he held
that the Commission had another function of “educating the public on human
rights and freedom”.<o:p></o:p>The
learned trial judge, after taking legal argument on the issues submitted for
trial, the parties having previously elected to adopt the proceedings before
the Commission, proceeded to write his judgment.&nbsp; He posed the following questions:- <o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(i) “Is the constitution of the Panel to
perform the function of the Commission consistent with the constitutional
provision conferring the functions of the Commission on the Commission as
defined by Article 216?”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(ii) In the face of Article 216 can any other
law permit other persons other than the Commission to perform the investigation
function of the Commission?”<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;(iii) Is C.1.7, which seeks to confer
jurisdiction in investigating cases before the Commission on persons other than
the Commissioner and his two persons (?) in violation of the Constitution?”.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;The questions clearly indicated how the mind
of the learned judge was working.&nbsp; In the
end the said: “In accordance with Article 130 (2) of the 1992 Constitution I
will pose the question to the Supreme Court for determination “whether in the
face of Article 216, which defines the Commission, C.1.7 can confer
investigation powers on any other body like the panel defined in Regulation 6
of C.1.7.”<o:p></o:p>For
the purpose of the reference the panel which his Lordship referred to comprised
the Commissioner, Mr. Emile Short, and two others, namely Miss Jacinta Geral
(Senior Legal Officer) and Mr Isaac Annan (Principal Investigator).&nbsp; It was the Plaintiff’s case that the functions
of the Commission could only lawfully be carried out by the Commissioner and
his two Deputy Commissioners.<o:p></o:p>By
Article 216 of the 1992 Constitution, Parliament was to establish by an Act,
the Commission.&nbsp; This was done by the
Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice Act 1993, (Act 456).&nbsp; The Article further directed that the
Commission when established shall consist of the Commissioner and two Deputy
Commissioners.&nbsp; Article 220 provided that
the Act of Parliament shall provide for the creation of regional and district
branches of the C</main>