THE REPUBLIC vs. FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE CENTRE; EX-PARTE: KENNETH KING KABUTEY [2017]DLHC3923

Date	2017-07-06
Suit No.	SUIT NO HRCM 55/15
Citation No.	[2017]DLHC3923

JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO HIGH COURT JUDGE

CYNTHIA STORPH-TAGOE FOR THE APPLICANT.

C. A. CHAMBERS (WITH HIM IS SOAAD BRAIMAH) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[2017]DLHC3923
																																						<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>FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE
CENTRE; EX-PARTE: KENNETH KING KABUTEY<o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT (HUMAN RIGHTS
DIVISION 1), ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>SUIT NO HRCM 55/15&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;6TH
JULY, 2017<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:<o:p></o:p>CYNTHIA STORPH-TAGOE FOR THE APPLICANT.<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;C. A. CHAMBERS (WITH HIM IS
SOAAD BRAIMAH) FOR THE RESPONDENT. <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>CORAM:<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;JUSTICE GIFTY AGYEI ADDO, HIGH COURT JUDGE<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt">

<o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>

</div>On 16th June, 2017, I delivered a ruling on the
preliminary issue the Court raised suo motu regarding the action having been
mounted against the chief executive officer of the Financial Intelligence
Centre (FIC) instead of the latter. The Applicant having amended the
Respondent’s name to reflect Financial Intelligence Centre, l shall proceed to
deliver my Judgment on the merits of the application. The application is for
judicial review by way of certiorari. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Before the substantive application for judicial review could be
determined, the Respondent raised a legal objection to the application for
judicial review. One of the grounds for the objection was that the application
had been filed out of time in that the action was instituted way after the
six-month period when the Applicant’s right of action accrued contrary to Order
55 Rule 3 (1) of C.I. 47. Per the Court’s ruling dated 24th February,
2017, the legal objection was overruled based on the reasoning that same could
only be proved by adducing evidence and therefore same was set up as an issue
to be determined during the trial. At the hearing of the application for
judicial review however, the proponent of the objection, the Respondent, failed
to adduce evidence in support of its claim, thereby placing before the Court a
finding of fact that the Applicant became aware of the basis for the present
application for judicial review on 28th of July, 2015 and instituted
this action the next day, which fact establishes that the present action was
instituted within the time frame stipulated by Order 55 Rule 3 (1) of C.I. 47.
Having established the propriety of the present application, I shall now turn
to the merits. It is the case of the Applicant that he is a businessman who
deals in the sale of precious minerals and is licensed by the Precious Minerals
and Marketing Limited. The Applicant says that he has business partners outside
the country who send him remittances from time to time for the purpose of
carrying out his business. According to the Applicant, he operates bank
accounts with three banks in Ghana at the moment and carries out all
transactions with the said banks in line with the relevant laws of the country.
<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>To facilitate his business, the Applicant says further that he
operates both a cedi and foreign currency accounts with the banks in line with
all the relevant rules and regulations governing such transactions. The
Applicant says that he came across a letter dated 18th December,
2014, with reference number CF/1228/14/67 and authored by the Respondent and
addressed to all banks describing him as a high risk person who should be dealt
with cautiously. This is evidenced by a copy of the letter exhibited as Exhibit
‘KKA’. Per my earlier ruling dated the 16th June, 2017, the
Respondent is the Financial Intelligence Centre. That said letter also advised
all banks to urgently inform the Respondent, Financial Intelligence Centre, of
any foreign remittance received by him before crediting any such amount to his
account. The Applicant states that the said letter, Exhibit ‘KKA’, has caused
him a lot of embarrassment and inconvenience and has actually affected his
business to the extent that monies he has attempted to pay into his personal
foreign accounts have been refused by some banks. It is the case of the
Applicant that the Respondent wrote the letter describing him as a high risk
person who should be dealt cautiously with without giving him any hearing
whatsoever. <o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That the conduct of the Respondent in making an adverse decision
about him without giving him a hearing is against the principle of natural
justice. The Applicant consequently grounds the instant application for
judicial review on the alleged breaches of Articles 18 and 23 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992 and also a failure to give him any
hearing by the Respondent. The application has been resisted by the Respon</main>