Accra, March 29, GNA - An Order of Prohibition restraining the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) from investigating and or= hearing the Mabey and Johnson alleged bribery scandal has been filed at an Accra Fast Track High Court (AFTHC).

An ex-parte motion filed by Mr Sam Cudjoe, Counsel for the six officials contended that they could not be guaranteed a fair hearing; therefore CHRAJ should be prohibited from any further hearing.

They are Kwame Peprah, Ahaji Baba Kamara, Alhaji Boniface Abubakar Sadique, Alhaji Amadu Seidu, Brigadier-General Lord Attivor and Dr Ato Quarshie. In an affidavit, they said prohibiting CHRAJ from investigating the= scandal would give meaning to the assertion that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be manifestly being done.

They said the jurisdiction of CHRAJ to investigate them was not exclusive as there were other constitutional bodies which had the right and mandate to investigate them.

According to them, CHRAJ would be very biased if it was not restrai= ned from any further investigations and or public hearing in the alleged scandal now pending before it.

They said it was most unprofessional for a judicial or quasi judici= al official such as Commissioner Emile Short to discuss his views in a case before it with= a third party during a panel discussion on television.

"The conduct of Commissioner Short who stated that he was speaking for and on behalf of the Commission is such that we cannot be guaranteed a fair hear= ing before CHRAJ," it said.

They said on Tuesday, March 16, 2010, Commissioner Short, Head of t= he CHRAJ panel hearing the scandal, granted an extensive interview on Metro television, an independent television station with extensive coverage country wide and internationally.

In the said interview which was for almost one hour, Commissioner Short speaking on behalf of CHRAJ discussed the pending Mabey and Johnson investigations in detail with the interviewer, Mr. Paul Adom Otchere.

According to them, "the interviewer stated in his opening remarks t= hat he was going to discuss the Mabey and Johnson case together with the objections raised before CHGRAJ".

During the interview, Commissioner Short stated that he was investigating the

allegation and explained that CHRAJ had invoked the mutual legal assistan= ce and

requested the United Kingdom authorities for evidence. Commissioner Short stated that he "wanted to review the additional evidence to

see the weight adding the documents before it and the monies paid to the public

officials were bribes". "His answer that the documents before CHRAJ showed that the monies paid were

bribes showed that Commissioner Short has already predetermined the issue=

that any

monies paid were bribes". "This was most strange in that CHRAJ was to determine whether any monies

were paid and if paid whether any such money paid were bribes", the officials stated. The officials said "Commissioner Short in answer to another questio= n as to

whether the amounts paid were very small, he (Commissioner Short) stated that the

quantum of money paid was irrelevant and that he had dealt with the issue= of

whether a small sum of money paid could be a bribe in a previous case". "To a question of our objection raised before him at the public hearing on March

15, 2010 on the representation of Mr Thaddeus Sory, Commissioner Short sa= id even

though he had reserved ruling on the case for March 29, 2010, he nevertheless gave

the reasons for his ruling on why CHRAJ hired a private legal practitione= r to

represent them", they said. Though saying that he did not want to comment on that issue, he claimed that

the procedure was contained in the Commission's rules. The officials said it was incorrect in that under the existing law,=

CHRAJ had no

such provision for hiring the services of a private legal practitioner to=

participate in a

public hearing as a legal counsel in the way Mr Thaddeus Sory intends to act.

A letter dated March 17, 2010 was written to Commissioner Short to cease hearing the matter on the grounds that CHRAJ by the interview had shown t= hat it

was biased and we could not be guaranteed a fair hearing. The officials said even though they had served CHRAJ with a copy of=

the letter it had not responded to it and yet went ahead to state that it intended to investigate "us on a further charge of abuse of office based on the same material bef= ore them".

They noted that CHRAJ had indicated that it intended to conduct a public hearing

in respect of this further charge. The officials said the action of CHRAJ was not in accordance with t= he rules

governing the commissions' public hearing and investigations which requir= ed that it

conducted a preliminary hearing before a full public hearing was undertak= en. According to the officials; the interview granted by Commissioner Short on March

16, 2010 was done deliberately to incite the public against them, put pressure on the Supreme Court to dismiss the preliminary objection which had been referre= d by CHRAJ itself to the court.

"This is more so when from the interview granted the only inference is that CHRAJ has some personal animosity against us and would stop at nothing to get at us," they added The AFTHC is yet to fix a date for hearing.