.. Says counsel for human rights body

Yesterday, at the Supreme Court of Justice, counsel for the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), Nene Amegatse, shot himself in the foot and fell flat on the face during his argument before Her Lordship, Chief Justice Georgina Wood and her able panel, by faulting his client for interpreting parts of the 1992 Constitution in its investigations about Dr. Richard Anane, former Minister for Transportation.

According to Nene Amegatse, the Commission acted wrongly by interpreting parts of the 1992 Constitution on its investigations into allegations of abuse of office and conflict of interest against the former Minister of Transportation.

He said this when he had earlier told the court that the purported constitutional interpretation by the Accra Fast Track High Court Judge, Paul Baffoe-Bonney, that CHRAJ has no mandate to investigate issues that has not been brought before it by a specific person, was wrong since the interpretation of the Constitution was the exclusive reserve of the Supreme Court, being the highest court of the land.

“My lord, the interpretation of the 1992 Constitution is exclusively reserved for this Honourable court and not any other court”.

He then proceeded to argue that the Commission did not need a written complaint from a specific person before it can launch investigations into complaints as ruled by the Fast Track High Court.

Committing himself before Her Lordship and her panel, Mr. Amegatse contended that in the Commission’s estimation, Article 287 (1) did not provide that there should be an identifiable complainant with complaints to the Commission before it can investigate such complaints but complaints in the media can also be picked by the Commission for further investigations.

It was at this juncture that Her Lordship asked counsel for the Commission to confirm whether the Commission did interpret the Constitution as he had earlier said. When he answered in the positive, Her Lordship then referred counsel to his earlier statement that the interpretation of the Constitution was the reserve of the Supreme Court and asked him whether CHRAJ acted wrongly by interpreting the Constitution.

His answer was yes. “Yes my lord I admit that CHRAJ was wrong by interpreting the Constitution”, he said to the amusement of the people in the court room.

Continuing his argument in the case brought before the Supreme Court for interpretation on whether CHRAJ can investigate complaints with or without a written complaint and an identifiable complainant, counsel for the Commission prayed the Supreme Court to quash Justice Baffoe-Bonney’s ruling.

In addition, counsel for the Commission sought the court’s interpretations of the words; corruption, complaint and abuse of power, as given by Articles 287 (1); 218(a) and 218(e).

He said there was an ambiguity in the way and manner the Constitution spelt out those provisions and therefore requested the court to clarify the true intention of the Constitution and also give directions which he said, would then bind all other courts as to whether CHRAJ has the mandate to investigate matters with or without written complaint by an identifiable person.

However, Mr. Joseph Kwasi Agyemang, counsel for Dr Richard Anane had a field day in punching countless holes into his opponent’s argument.

He contented that there was no ambiguity about the referred words, maintaining that they were explicit in their form and therefore did not need any further interpretation by the Supreme Court.

He prayed the court to completely deny all the requests by his friend on the other side since the Commission had appealed against the High Court ruling, adding that there was nothing for the court to interpret.

Cutting his opponent’s argument into shreds, he pointed that the Commission had an elaborate document that specifies how complainants are sent to their outfit and quibbled that on what basis did the Commission prepared that document.