The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has filed an appeal challenging a prohibition order against it in any future investigation of the Minister of Finance (MoF), Mr Ken Ofori-Atta, and his assets.
An Accra High Court, on July 25, 2018, quashed CHRAJ’s decision of December 2017 on the Finance Minister in his issuance of the five-, seven-, 10- and 15-year bonds early that same year.
In its decision, based on a petition filed by a Ghanaian, Mr Brogya Gyenfi, on April 25, 2017, who alleged conflict of interest and corruption by Mr Ken Ofori-Atta in his issuance of the bonds, the commission exonerated the minister because Mr Gyenfi could not substantiate his claims.
However, the commission found that in the issuance of the bonds, Section 56 of the Public Financial Management Act (PFMA) 2016 was breached, while it also found the minister’s non-disclosure of his interest in some business concerns a breach of Article 286 of the 1992 Constitution.
Prohibition
However, on April 25, 2018, an Accra High Court quashed the decision of CHRAJ on purported findings that the minister did not disclose his assets.
The court went further to prohibit the commission from any future investigations of the MoF or his assets on the basis that CHRAJ would be prejudiced against him and be biased.
The Attorney General also filed an application for a judicial review on findings that portions of the PFMA 2016 were breached and the court held in favour of the minister.
In that ruling, CHRAJ was also prohibited from any investigations in relation to the PFMA 2016 and the issuance of bonds generally.
The court said in any future investigations, CHRAJ had to limit itself to conflict of interest issues only.
Beyond legal power
However, the Commissioner of CHRAJ, Mr Joseph Whittal, in an interview with the Daily Graphic last Friday, said the prohibitions were far beyond what the 1992 Constitution permitted, hence the appeal.
He said the prohibitions by the court impinged on provisions on the mandate of the commission, guaranteed by the Constitution.
“The challenge unduly limits us in our mandate given by the 1992 Constitution,” Mr Whittal said.
Context
On April 25, 2017, Mr Gyenfi had petitioned CHRAJ to look into how the bonds were issued, alleging conflict of interest by Mr Ofori-Atta.
After nine months of investigations, CHRAJ, on December 22, 2017, came out with its report exonerating the minister because Mr Gyenfi could not substantiate his claims.
The report, however, said in the course of investigations, the minister was found to have had interests in some business concerns that were not disclosed, thereby breaching Article 286 of the 1992 Constitution.
CHRAJ also found some procedural lapses in the issuance of the bonds that breached Section 56 of the PFMA 2016 by failing to seek parliamentary approval before the issuance of the bonds.
Source: Daily Graphic
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
Those criticising aluta, I hope if the table turns tomorrow and the same thing happens you will support this decision of the high court. In law, judges can interpret a particular law narrowly or broadly due to the issue at hand or due to the effect the court want the law to have. Please if maybe NDC comes to power and CHRAJ or another investigative body try to ascertain particular facts by looking into causes for that fact to have occurred, you will maintain that that investigative body has no got the mandate to investigate that circumstantial evidence. I dont care if NDC or NPP is in power because I still ave to extend facilities to the underprivileged due to the mismanagement of Ghana's affairs across the board. So we need people with principles. That is the only way that our politicians and civil servants will realise we mean business.
please do you understand the issues involve? read the case again. the commissioner has no business with investigating the assets of the minister since that has nothing to do with conflict of interest. the commissioner should not behave like he is an extension of the 'umbrella'
Mr. Aluta the court is not setting any bad president.. If CHRAG was ask to investigate specific issue which is conflict of interest how then do you go beyond your mandate to investigate his assets and you didn't even given the finance minister hearing.. This is very bad and would rather impute some motive that you r doing the biding of the NDC because they gave him that position even if that is not correct
THE COURTS CAN SET "BAD" PRECEDENCE BECAUSE NPP IS IN POWER. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT MOST OF THE JUDGES IN POSITION OF INFLUENCE IN THE HIGER COURTS ARE ALIGNED TO NPP AND UTTERANCES FROM NPP QUARTERS OFTEN GO TO CONFIRM THIS. LET SUCH "BAD PRECEDENCE REMAIN IN OUR LEGAL BOOKS WHICH EVEN THOUGH NOT STATUTORY WILL BECOME ENTRENCHED IN OUR SYSTEM TO GIVE ROOM FOR OTHER GOVERNMENTS TO EXPLOIT IN THEIR FAVOUR AS REFERENCES WILL BE MADE TO THIS KIND OF RULING. WHY SHOULD YH FINANCE MINISTER AND ALL HIS BUSINESSES BE EXEMPTED FROM LEGAL SCRUTINY? I WAS NOT SURPRISED IN ANYWAY WHEN A FULANI MAN ONCE TOLD ME HE WILL DESTROY MY PLANTS AND GO FREE BECAUSE THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN GHANA IS THE CAUSE OF BAD POLICIES AND GOVERNANCE IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE THEY (JUDGES) WILL KNOW THE TRUTH AND GIVE A DIFFERENT RULING JUST BECAUSE THEY (JUDGES) ARE EASILY INFLUENCED.