Private legal practitioner and a member of the National Democratic Congress' (NDCs) legal team, Lawyer David Annan has said, Mr. Ernesto Yeboah, the ''so-called National Youth Organiser of the Convention People’s Party (CPP), had no locus to petition the Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) over the controversial ford gift saga.

The lawyer in an interview with Kwame Tutu on Rainbow Radio 87.5Fm said, CHRAJ should have struck his [Mr. Yeboah's] case because he was not serious and failed to present to the Commission further and better particulars.

According to him, it was only the Progressive People's Party (PPP) that was spot on with their petition. CHRAJ in a 78 page report said, the president's decision to accept a Ford gift, did not constitute fraud, bribery, or conflict of interest.

CHRAJ in their statement said, “Whilst the Respondent contravened the Gift Policy by accepting the Ford vehicle, his actions after the gift was made clearly cured any conflict of interest that could have been occasioned.

In the circumstances, the Commission is satisfied that the Respondent’s conduct did not violate Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.”

CHRAJ also established that, the President was not culpable of conflict of interest, bribery or fraud in relation to the manner in which the vehicle was given to him.

“At the end of the preliminary investigation the Commission has come to the conclusion, based on the extensive evidence assembled, that the allegations that the Respondent has contravened Article 284 of the 1992 Constitution by putting himself in situations of conflict of interest has not been substantiated.

Consequently, the Commission holds that full or further investigations into the allegations are not warranted.

The allegations therefore, are hereby dismissed.” Commenting on the report, lawyer David Annan said, Mr. Ernesto Yeboah had no legal powers to petition CHRAJ to investigate President Mahama.

The CPP did not petition CHRAJ as a political party but rather, a so-called National Youth Organiser of the National Youth League petitioned CHRAJ.

But they had no legal capacity to petition any institution to investigate the president. Per the CHRAJ Act, 456 and the corresponding part of the constitution, the petitioner should be a natural person, party and not a branch of the party. CHRAJ should have dismissed the petition from the Youth League of the party.

It should have been struck off,'' lawyer Anna said. He said, apart from the PPP, both the Youth League of CPP represented by Ernesto Yeboah and one other individual Nana Adofo Ofori failed to convince CHRAJ beyond reasonable doubt that, the president was culpable for the offence they cited him for.

He said, these two petitioners instead of providing evidence rather called on CHRAJ to conduct their own internal investigations.

He described it as ''totally inappropriate'' adding that, the first two petitioners, should have provided the evidence to prosecute their case.

Commenting on the evidence presented by the PPP, he said, they extracted from myjoyonline stories on the ford saga with other evidence to prosecute their case and council for the President, Tony Lithur answered every single question raised.