THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ECONOMIC & ORGANISED CRIME OFFICE ACCRA vs. INVESTMENT STRATEGIES ENTERPRISE AND DANIEL ADDO [2013]DLHC4196

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ECONOMIC & ORGANISED CRIME OFFICE ACCRA vs. INVEST... [2013]DLHC4196

Date	2013-07-15
Suit No.	SUIT NO. FTRM/39/13
Citation No.	[2013]DLHC4196

HIS LORDSHIP MR JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH

ALEXANDER AFENYO MARKIN WITH BERNINA KORKOR OKUTU FOR THE RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS

DR PHILIP ANDERSON FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT

[2013]DLHC4196
																																						<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 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ECONOMIC &amp; ORGANISED CRIME OFFICE ACCRA&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>INVESTMENT STRATEGIES
ENTERPRISE AND DANIEL ADDO<o:p></o:p>[HIGH
COURT (FINANCIAL DIVISION 1), 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">

SUIT NO. FTRM/39/13&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:
15TH JULY, 2013<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>ALEXANDER
AFENYO MARKIN WITH BERNINA KORKOR OKUTU FOR THE RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS<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">

DR
PHILIP ANDERSON FOR THE APPLICANT/RESPONDENT<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>HIS
LORDSHIP MR JUSTICE P. BRIGHT MENSAH<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border-top:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
border-left:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;border-right:none;
padding:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">

<p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="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:0in;mso-padding-alt:1.0pt 0in 1.0pt 0in">RULING<o:p></o:p>

</div>Before
me is a motion for an order to release and defreeze bank accounts of the
Respondents/Applicants herein.&nbsp; The
application is premised on Article 296(a)&amp;(b) of the 1992 Constitution;
S.38(1)(a)(i) of Act 804 and Order 19 r 1(1) of CI 47 as per the motion paper.<o:p></o:p>The
foundation of the application is that the Respondents/Applicants were notified
per a letter dated December 4, 2012 sent to them by the Applicant/ Respondent
indicating that the Respondents/Applicants’ bank accounts with the Fidelity
Bank (Gh) Ltd, at the East Legon branch in Accra have been frozen.&nbsp; According to the Respondents/Applicants, they
were not informed of the basis for the freezing neither were they invited to
volunteer any statement.&nbsp; However, upon
receipt of that letter (herein referred to as Exhibit DA1), the 2nd
Respondent/Applicant went to the Office of the Applicant/Respondent and
provided all the necessary documentation/information to facilitate and assist
in any investigation by the Respondent/Applicant as to the source of the
funds.&nbsp; Surprisingly, 4 months or so have
since elapsed when he went to the Office of the Applicant/Respondent but the
Respondents/Applicants have never been charged with any offence. Nevertheless,
their bank accounts remain frozen even in the face of an appeal made to the
E.O.C.O in a letter, Exhibit DA2.<o:p></o:p>It
is the case of the Respondents/Applicants that the Applicant/Respondent has
woefully failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the 1992
Constitution and the Economic &amp; Organised Crime Office Act, 2010 (Act
804).&nbsp; They are, therefore, urging on the
court to defreeze the accounts mentioned herein.<o:p></o:p>Preliminary
point of law hinging on the capacity of Counsel for the Respondents/ Applicants
to seek audience in court:<o:p></o:p>It
is of extreme importance to observe that when the motion came up for hearing on
09/07/13, learned Counsel advocating for the Economic &amp; Organised Crime
Office took some objections which he claimed were of a preliminary nature.&nbsp; First, he called into question the capacity of
learned Counsel for the Respondents/Applicants to represent the
Respondents/Applicants in this matter on the premise that as a Member of Ghana
Parliament, learned Counsel could be given audience in the court in his
practice of the law only if he has been permitted by the Speaker of Parliament.<o:p></o:p>Next,
Counsel submitted with quite an amount of emphasis that his learned friend as a
public office holder by reason of being Member of Parliament his prosecution of
the instant application against a state institutionie Economic &amp;Organised
Crime Office (E.O.C.O) runs in conflict with Article 100 of the 1992
Constitution.<o:p></o:p>He
did submit that as a Member of Parliament, Counsel for the Respondents/
Applicants took the Oath of Allegiance and Oath of Parliament thus his duty to
his clients in this case is in conflict with the oath he took in
Parliament.&nbsp; In support of his contention
learned Counsel relied on R v HIGH COURT (FAST TRACK DIVISION), ACCRA; EXPARTE
NATIONAL LOTTERIES AUTHORITY (2009) SCGLR 390.<o:p></o:p>Accordingly,
he asked the court to refuse audience to Counsel for the
Respondents/Applicants.<o:p></o:p>In
reply, learned Counsel for the Respondents/Applicants as though he was
obliviousof any challenge as to his capacity to seek audience in the court,
produced in court for the benefit of both the bench and Counsel on the other
side, receipts of payments of his annual fees to the Ghana Bar Association and
his current licence to practice law.&nbsp;
Additionally, he produced a Daily Graphic publication of lawyers of good
standing in the records of the Ghana Bar Association which included him as well
as his junior, Bernina KorkorOkutu who appeared with him.&nbsp; He equally produced to allay the fears of his
learned friend and to the satisfaction of the court, a certificate by the
Speaker of Parliament entitling him to practice law in addition to doing his
private business and combining them with his parliamentary duties. <o:p></o:p>Next,
learned Counsel referred to the Oath of Parliament on p.209 of the Constitution
and disagreed with his learned friend that his representation in this case was
in conflict with Article 100 of the 1992 Constitution or that his conduct
amounts to a conflict of interest.&nbsp; With
quite an amount of force, learned Counsel did submit that he swore an oath in
Parliament to defend the Constitution and that the instant matter being a human
rights issue bordering on Article 18 of the Constitution.&nbsp; He took the view thatif the objection was
sustained it would have an overriding effect on this clear and express
constitutional provision and to him, that would amount to a lot of
injustice.&nbsp; He maintained that he does
not hold any ministerial office neither is he on the side of Government in
Parliament.&nbsp; It has also not been
demonstrated that he is a member of a particular Select Committee of Parliament
that is in charge or has direct oversight responsibility over activities for
which he as a Solicitor for the Respondents/Applicants will be in conflict
with, he added.<o:p></o:p>Counsel
contended further that in our criminal jurisprudence, prosecution of cases
emanates from the Attorney General’s Department and in the instant matter where
his clients are being investigated, he reserved the right to defend them.&nbsp; He posited that if the objection was
sustained the net effect will be that even if his wife was facing a criminal
investigation or trial he cannot go to her aid by way of legal representation.<o:p></o:p>Co</main>