The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) is locked in a minor credibility tug of war with a sex abuse victim. The victim, whose name is being withheld, has accused an elderly American gentleman of sodomising him when he was only fourteen years old.

He feels CHRAJ is dragging its feet in this case of paedophilia.

After ADM's first story on the case, CHRAJ by a letter of 25.06.02 asked him to refund an amount of ?5 million before his case would be investigated.

In his response to CHRAJ he stated: "I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 25.06.02 asking me to refund an amount of ?5 million before you investigate my case. In my maiden letter to the Commission which was returned to me on the grounds that it was not signed, I suspect there was a typographical error for the amount the man gave me was only ?500, 000 and not 5,000,000 cedis as stated in your letter to me.

With the above notwithstanding, I am rather surprised at the tone of your letter which seems to suggest that you are not interested in the major crime of paedophilia and your interest is only in the refund of money that was not even given to me.

I would make so bold to suggest that even if the man had even fully 'compensated' me and I reported the case to you, you would as a matter of principle have had to investigate it all the same.

I trust you will stand on the principle of injustice against a minor and investigate this case. I was sodomised as a child. Is that not serious enough to investigate?"

In a reaction to the above, the Acting Registrar of the Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice Mr. Charles Nimako told ADM the Commission could not take direct action on criminal matters.

What the commission can do is to offer advice to a petitioner on how best to proceed on cases with criminal undertones. The Acting Registrar said ultimately it is the prerogative of the petitioner to decide whether to pursue further any criminal aspects of a case brought before it.

Mr. Nimako said it is the police that are empowered to deal frontally with criminal cases. In this victim's case the Commission had advised him to report the matter to the police but he refused on the grounds that a public trial may expose him to ridicule.

There are grey areas here because the Commission in its letter referred to above had indicated that should the victim refund a certain amount of money purportedly paid to him as compensation by the accused, then it would find its way clear in investigating the case.

The victim's response, also cited above, makes the interesting observation of violations of his human rights in these words, "I was sodomised as a child. Is that not serious enough for CHRAJ to investigate?" Human rights issues would normally fall directly within the ambit of the Commission.

Paedophilia cases make headlines in Europe where it is big business often run by unscrupulous individuals with shady backgrounds.

The alleged perpetrator in this case is said to still be in Accra most likely still committing more sodomy on unsuspecting children. ADM has been informed that his lair is somewhere around Tesano/Abeka and he is well known in certain circles as a confirmed homosexual.

The question still remains: Who bells the cat?