Counsels for the Road Transport Minister, Richard Winfred Anane, have accused the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice of deliberately doctoring its report to indict the MP of various offences.

The Commission, Dr. Anane's counsels allege, "appears to have relied on its own transcripts to the exclusion of Counsel's written submission and as a result attributed a quote which Counsel did not make, to him," according to Acquah-Samson and Associates, the legal consultants representing Dr. Anane.

The complaints were contained in an official letter fired by Acquah-Sampson and Associates, counsels for Dr. Anane, to the Acting Commissioner of CHRAJ, Anna Bossman, dated 19 September 2006 and made available exclusively to The Statesman.

The Nhyiaeso MP is therefore demanding a public apology from the Commission and an immediate rectification of the anomaly that led to the "unfortunate decision."

The decision of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice on the investigations into allegations of corruption, conflict of interest and abuse of power against the Road Transport minister was released on Friday, and has led to widespread calls for Dr. Anane's resignation, especially from a section of the media.

But aspects of the report on the panel hearings are in fact incorrect, according to the Minister's Counsel, which draws two "obvious conclusions" from discrepancies in the report:

The first, counsels argue, is that "either the transcripts of the proceedings were overly inaccurate and unreliable, thus consequently rendering portions of the decision highly flawed" or second: that "the transcripts and especially the portion aforesaid, was deliberately doctored to achieve a particular meaning."

The particular "portion" which the Anane team is contesting is page 24 paragraph 7.2.2 of the CHIRAJ report.

Citing a case study from the law reports Collins Doudo Bonsu, to make a case, the Counsel for Dr Anane is quoted as saying: "…Commission to uphold same that it is not improbable in our cultural context and for purely opportunistic intentions or motives for this gentleman to do what he did…"

The CHRAJ decision cites the quotation to be from page 15 of hearing 23 held on July 7, 2006.

However, Dr Anane's legal team disagrees, accusing CHRAJ of editing or mis-quoting the text and, in the process, altering its meaning.

"We have critically examined the transcripts for the said day vis a vis the written submission dated the 5th of July 2006 filed on behalf of the Recipient, Dr. Richard Anane and wish to state categorically and in no uncertain terms, that, the quotation in the said manuscript purportedly made by Counsel for the Honourable Recipient, does not accord with what is contained in the written submission.

A cursory glance of page 23 of the written closing submission by Counsel for and on behalf of Dr Richard Anane clearly shows that there is a disparity between what is contained in the Decision and the aforesaid quote from Counsel's submission."

"In the circumstance, we demand the Commission to immediately, and publicly rectify the above mentioned anomaly in its Decision and also to take steps to render a public apology to Counsel and the Respondent."

CHRAJ had yet to respond to the letter at the time of filing our report.

Last Friday, the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice presented findings of its investigations into allegations of corruption, conflicts of interest and abuse of power against the Roads Transport minister.

Though cleared on the allegation of corruption, the Commission, however, recommended his removal from office as the findings of the investigations, according to the report, showed that the Minister had given contradictory figures concerning money sent to his mistress, Alexandria O'Brian, under oath before the Commission and in a prior appearance before a Parliamentary Select Committee during his vetting as Minister last year.