THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK) ACCRA EX-PARTE: COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHT AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE (HONOURABLE DR. RICHARD ANANE INTERESTED PARTY) [2007]DLSC10854

THE REPUBLIC vs. HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK) ACCRA EX-PARTE: COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIG... [2007]DLSC10854

Date	2007-12-21
Suit No.	CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/10/2007
Citation No.	[2007]DLSC10854

GEORGINA WOOD CJ

BROBBEY

DR DATE-BAH

ANSAH ANDANINAKWAH JSC

[2007]DLSC10854
																																						<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 REPUBLIC<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK) ACCRA&nbsp;EX-PARTE:
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHT AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE (HONOURABLE DR. RICHARD ANANE
&nbsp;&nbsp;INTERESTED PARTY)<o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:normal;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:0cm 0cm 1.0pt 0cm">CIVIL MOTION NO. J5/10/2007 &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;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE:
21 DECEMBER 2007<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p><div style="border-top: none; border-right: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; padding: 0cm 0cm 1pt; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0.2pt;">

GEORGINA WOOD CJ, BROBBEY, DR DATE-BAH, ANSAH ANDANINAKWAH JSC<o:p></o:p>

</div><div style="border-top-width: 1.5pt; border-top-color: windowtext; border-left: none; border-bottom-width: 1.5pt; border-bottom-color: windowtext; border-right: none; padding: 1pt 0cm; margin-left: 0cm; margin-right: 0.2pt;">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-top-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;padding:0cm;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0cm 1.0pt 0cm"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: &quot;Book Antiqua&quot;, serif; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p>

</div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 18pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">I have&nbsp; had the benefit of reading
in advance the decision of my noble and&nbsp; eminent President- The Chief
Justice, as well as those of my other&nbsp; learned senior colleagues, -
Justice Brobbey and Dr. Date-Baah. Their decisions have exhausted whatever
there is to be said. The Rules and Cannons of Interpretation have been fully
discussed.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 18pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">I fully agree with the decision read by
the Honourable President and Justice. I will therefore concern myself only with
a little of what I think of the issue before us. i.e.:<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 18pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The Supreme Court on 30th&nbsp;October,
2007 after quashing the decision of the High Court, Accra, which&nbsp;
purported to interprete the&nbsp; word “Complaint” in Article 218 (a) of
the&nbsp; 1992 Constitution, formulated the following issue&nbsp; for
determination under Article 130(2) of the Constitution, i.e.:-<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 18pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">“For a Complaint within the meaning&nbsp;
of Article 218(a) of the 1992 Constitution to form the basis for investigation
by the&nbsp; Commission on Human Right and Administrative Justice – must it be
made by an identifiable&nbsp; individual or corporate body and lodged with the
Commission or&nbsp; are&nbsp; complaints (in other words, expressions of
dissatisfaction) made through the&nbsp; media and other public fora regarding
“Violations of Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, injustice, corruption,
abuse of power and unfair&nbsp;&nbsp;treatment of any person by a public
officer in&nbsp;the exercise&nbsp; of his official duties “an adequate
basis for the institution of&nbsp; investigation by CHRAJ?”.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 18pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 18pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">The Supreme Court then invited
submissions from the stakeholders i.e. CHRAJ (hereinafter referred to as the
applicant), the Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Interested Party)
and the Attorney General.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 18pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">In their respective submissions, whiles
the Applicant insists that it requires no formal complaint to empower it to
commence investigation into matters aforesaid, both the Interested Party and
the Attorney General are of the strong opinion that the Applicant requires
formal complaint by an identifiable individual or group of persons to trigger
investigation into matters mentioned under Article 218(a) of the 1992
Constitution.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 18pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;And whiles the Applicant prefers
that the word “Complaint” be given a Liberal and purposive interpretation, the
Interested party proposes the Literal and purposive interpretation and the
Attorney General will be comfortable with the Literal meaning of the Word “Complaint”.<o:p></o:p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; line-height: 18pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: i</main>