THE REPUBLIC vs. COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE EX-PARTE: KWAME PEPRAH AND 5 OTHERS [2011]DLCA6612

THE REPUBLIC vs. COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE EX-PARTE... [2011]DLCA6612

Date	2011-03-24
Suit No.	CIVIL APPEAL NO: H1/7/2011
Citation No.	[2011]DLCA6612

G.M. QUAYE J.A. (PRESIDING)

APPAU J.A.

SIR DENNIS ADJEI J.A

MR. THADEUS SORY FOR THE RESPONDENT S/APPELLANTS

MISS. BARBARA SERWA ASAMOAH FOR APPLICANT’S/RESPONDENTS (LED BY SAMUEL CUDJOE)

[2011]DLCA6612
																																						<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>COMMISSION
OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE<o:p></o:p>(RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS)<o:p></o:p>EX-PARTE: KWAME
PEPRAH AND 5 OTHERS<o:p></o:p>(APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS)<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>[COURT OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<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:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:center;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">CIVIL
APPEAL NO: H1/7/2011&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; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DATE: 24TH MARCH, 2011<o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:
justify;line-height:115%;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">MISS. BARBARA SERWA
ASAMOAH FOR APPLICANT’S/RESPONDENTS (LED BY SAMUEL CUDJOE) <o:p></o:p>

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height:
115%;mso-outline-level:1;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">G.M. QUAYE, J.A.
(PRESIDING) APPAU, J.A. AND SIR DENNIS ADJEI, J.A.<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:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

</div>G.M.
QUAYE, J.A, <o:p></o:p>On
11th June 2010, the High Court read a ruling in an application filed at the
instance of the applicants/respondents herein and thereby made an order
prohibiting the respondents/appellants from continuing with the process of
investigating allegations that had been made in respect of the
applicants/respondents. <o:p></o:p>After
the brief preamble above, I consider that a short reference to the facts of
this case which has come before us by way of an appeal from the ruling of the
High Court aforesaid, would, to a large extent provide a worthy and appropriate
starting point, and make readers and hearers as well, fine tuned to appreciate
the case and this judgment. <o:p></o:p>At
a point in time in 2009, there was wide speculation generally, from the
Ghanaian public, which was a fall-out from, in the wake of, or in any case
triggered off by an action that had been determined in the SOUTHWARK CROWN
COURT in the United Kingdom, on 25th September 2009. That case was titled
REGINA vrs. MABEY &amp; JOHNSON LIMITED. The real parties involved in that
action were the SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE, U.K. and the company, MABEY AND JOHNSON
(M &amp; J). In the said proceedings, the name of this country, GHANA, came up
strongly, and more particularly, certain former holders of Public Offices in
Ghana, and one other person who had not held Public Office, were specifically
singled out for mention and smeared with allegations that bordered on
corruption in the conduct of the affairs of their respective offices. The
increasing speculation, and the rising atmosphere of doubt, uncertainty, and
the irresistible question mark about the caliber and integrity of holders of
our public offices, prompted the filing of two formal requests to the
respondents/appellants Commission, to conduct investigations into the
allegations in order to set the minds of Ghanaians at ease, allay their fears
and diffuse tensions. <o:p></o:p>The
first of the two formal requests was from a group bearing the name COALITION
FOR DEMOCRATIC FORCES. In their letter of 12th October 2009, the Coalition
appealed to the appellant/Commission to investigate the circumstances in which
M &amp; J won their contracts in Ghana as well as all activities in which M
&amp; J Limited were involved and all officials, who, in one way or the other,
had dealings with M &amp; J, so that the whole truth about the allegations
would be unearthed. The second request emanated from the Office of the
President, The Castle, OSU. It was written on 13th October 2009. Paragraph 2
thereof, stated that “In pursuant (sic) of his commitment to the highest standards
of integrity, probity and accountability in Public life, His Excellency, the
President is requesting CHRAJ to undertake a thorough investigation into the
matter”. <o:p></o:p>In
response to the above requests as well as to address public concern, the
appellant Commission dispatched the necessary correspondence, and invited the
applicants/respondents to present themselves before it for the investigations
to commence. This culminated in holding the first meeting between the parties
herein on 15th March 2010. <o:p></o:p>Prior
to that date, the appellants had informed each of the respondents about the
specific allegations against him and they had actually instructed lawyers to
respond to the allegations. At the meeting on 15th March 2010, the applicants
respectively raised objections to the Jurisdiction of the appellant Commission
to conduct the investigations. While the objection by the 2nd
applicant/respondent was referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation and
ruling, the points of objection canvassed by the rest of the applicants/respondents
were adjourned until 29th March 2010 for ruling by the Commission. Then came a
turning point in the investigation proceedings. <o:p></o:p>