CHRAJ WAS WRONG-Court overturns Anane ruling
Gilbert Boyefio
14/03/2007
Judgements of perjury and conflict of interest pronounced against Richard Winfred Anane, the former Road Transport Minister by the Commission for human Rights and Administrative Justice, which led to his resignation in December, were yesterday pronounced invalid by a Fast Track High Court in Accra.
The court presided over by Justice Baffoe Bonnie, an Appeal Court Judge sitting as an additional High Court Judge at a Fast Track High Court, ruled that CHRAJ's decision to investigate Dr Anane based on media reportage and not on any formal complaints from an identifiable person(s) was a recipe for chaos, irrespective of the good intentions of the Commission.
It said CHRAJ wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the matter and therefore, all the decisions and recommendations so far related to the enquiry on Dr Richard Anane should be removed from the records of the Commission and squashed.
The court held that there is no doubt that the Commission is invested with the powers to investigate, but that this power can only be activated by an official complaint from an identifiable person(s).
The court further held that Act 287 categorically states that "an allegation that a public officer has not complied with a provision of this Chapter shall be made to the Commissioner of CHRAJ and, in the case of the Commissioner of CHRAJ, to the Chief Justice who shall, unless the person concerned makes a written admission of the contravention or non-compliance, cause the matter to be investigated.?
He said, "It is clear that there was no official complaint by an identifiable person(s) to the Commission in this matter," adding, "The Commissioner can not say that she went out of her way to pick the complaint from the newspaper."
The judge observed that CHRAJ is an inferior tribunal and does not have any inherent powers to go beyond its jurisdiction.
He found it strange how CHRAJ came to the conclusion that Dr Anane had committed perjury. Dr Anane had misled a CHRAJ panel whilst under oath that he had remitted $30,000 to his mistress, while in a prior testimony before a Parliamentary Select Committee during his vetting as Minister of Road Transport in 2005, he told members that he had only remitted $10,000.
The judge further recommended that Dr Anane apologise to Parliament for misleading it and to the President and people of Ghana.
Justice Baffoe Bonnie said what made the matter serious was that Dr Anane was not made aware at the time by CHRAJ that he was being investigated for perjury. "The Commission does not have the mandate to investigate perjury; did not set out to investigate perjury and did not inform the accused that he is being investigated for perjury."
CHRAJ on September 16, 2006 found Richard Anane, guilty of abuse of power and of conflict of interest in its investigation following allegations in the Chronicle, and the Daily Graphic against him.
He was however found innocent of corruption.
According to Anna Bossman, Acting Commissioner for CHRAJ, the decision to investigate Dr Anane was made pursuant to Sections 7 and 18 of the Act establishing and governing the Commission. Specifically, the Commission set out to look into allegations of corruption, conflict of interest and the abuse of power leveled against the Minister.
She pointed out that the panel was not concerned with Dr Anane"s morality or the extra-marital affair between him and Alexandra O?Brien, an American consultant for the World Health Monitor Project, or their son.
She said under Act 284 of the constitution of Ghana, conflicts of interest refer to a situation where a public official?s personal interest conflicts with or is likely to conflict with his performance or functions of his office.
Ms Bossman said in the Commission?s view, conflicts of interest include: financial or otherwise direct or indirect participation in any business transactions or professional activities of any nature, which is or appears to have the potential of influencing public officials in the proper discharge of their duties.
According to the Commission, having reviewed the facts before it, it was evident that the conduct of Dr Anane in respect of Ms O?Brien amounts to conflict of interest and the abuse of power.
The Commission found Dr Anane to be in a situation of conflict of interest for turning a professional relationship into an intimate one. The Commission said whilst opening negotiations on a project that was purported to be of help to the entirety of Ghanaians, Dr Anane turned the official relationship into an intimate one. It noted that various e-mails from the Minister to Ms O?Brian indicated that he was unable to separate his private life from his official duties, and this amounted to a conflict of interest.
Ms Bossman said it is the Commission?s understanding that the state deploys a formal procedure for issuing a letter of intent for entering into a Memorandum of Understanding for the third party. She said this procedure will normally require authorisation from cabinet and eventually, if necessary, be confirmed by Parliament. She observed that Dr Anane?s conduct of issuing a letter of intent and MOU without following the proper procedure was therefore irregular and amounted to abuse of power.
Ms Bossman said on the allegation of corruption and kickbacks, there was not enough evidence to support the claim that between 2001- 2004, state monies totalling $126,560,000 were used to cover lodging, boarding, travelling and miscellaneous expenses of Ms O?Brian.
"On the contrary, the Commission finds that evidence available does not support the allegations that the various remittances of Ms O?Brian by Dr Anane came from state coffers," she added.
Explaining further, she said a total amount of $100,000 came out of Collins Owusu Doudu?s credit card while the remainder came from Dr Anane?s resources, including $16,000 allegedly coming from his wife.
She said all evidence shows that Ms O?Brian visited the Minister and stayed or lodged with him at a hotel at the expense of the Minister. She said there was no evidence to show that on either of the occasions, any of the expenses was charged to the state. She said, Anane claimed that he settled the bills through his per diem.
14/03/2007
Judgements of perjury and conflict of interest pronounced against Richard Winfred Anane, the former Road Transport Minister by the Commission for human Rights and Administrative Justice, which led to his resignation in December, were yesterday pronounced invalid by a Fast Track High Court in Accra.
The court presided over by Justice Baffoe Bonnie, an Appeal Court Judge sitting as an additional High Court Judge at a Fast Track High Court, ruled that CHRAJ's decision to investigate Dr Anane based on media reportage and not on any formal complaints from an identifiable person(s) was a recipe for chaos, irrespective of the good intentions of the Commission.
It said CHRAJ wrongly assumed jurisdiction in the matter and therefore, all the decisions and recommendations so far related to the enquiry on Dr Richard Anane should be removed from the records of the Commission and squashed.
The court held that there is no doubt that the Commission is invested with the powers to investigate, but that this power can only be activated by an official complaint from an identifiable person(s).
The court further held that Act 287 categorically states that "an allegation that a public officer has not complied with a provision of this Chapter shall be made to the Commissioner of CHRAJ and, in the case of the Commissioner of CHRAJ, to the Chief Justice who shall, unless the person concerned makes a written admission of the contravention or non-compliance, cause the matter to be investigated.?
He said, "It is clear that there was no official complaint by an identifiable person(s) to the Commission in this matter," adding, "The Commissioner can not say that she went out of her way to pick the complaint from the newspaper."
The judge observed that CHRAJ is an inferior tribunal and does not have any inherent powers to go beyond its jurisdiction.
He found it strange how CHRAJ came to the conclusion that Dr Anane had committed perjury. Dr Anane had misled a CHRAJ panel whilst under oath that he had remitted $30,000 to his mistress, while in a prior testimony before a Parliamentary Select Committee during his vetting as Minister of Road Transport in 2005, he told members that he had only remitted $10,000.
The judge further recommended that Dr Anane apologise to Parliament for misleading it and to the President and people of Ghana.
Justice Baffoe Bonnie said what made the matter serious was that Dr Anane was not made aware at the time by CHRAJ that he was being investigated for perjury. "The Commission does not have the mandate to investigate perjury; did not set out to investigate perjury and did not inform the accused that he is being investigated for perjury."
CHRAJ on September 16, 2006 found Richard Anane, guilty of abuse of power and of conflict of interest in its investigation following allegations in the Chronicle, and the Daily Graphic against him.
He was however found innocent of corruption.
According to Anna Bossman, Acting Commissioner for CHRAJ, the decision to investigate Dr Anane was made pursuant to Sections 7 and 18 of the Act establishing and governing the Commission. Specifically, the Commission set out to look into allegations of corruption, conflict of interest and the abuse of power leveled against the Minister.
She pointed out that the panel was not concerned with Dr Anane"s morality or the extra-marital affair between him and Alexandra O?Brien, an American consultant for the World Health Monitor Project, or their son.
She said under Act 284 of the constitution of Ghana, conflicts of interest refer to a situation where a public official?s personal interest conflicts with or is likely to conflict with his performance or functions of his office.
Ms Bossman said in the Commission?s view, conflicts of interest include: financial or otherwise direct or indirect participation in any business transactions or professional activities of any nature, which is or appears to have the potential of influencing public officials in the proper discharge of their duties.
According to the Commission, having reviewed the facts before it, it was evident that the conduct of Dr Anane in respect of Ms O?Brien amounts to conflict of interest and the abuse of power.
The Commission found Dr Anane to be in a situation of conflict of interest for turning a professional relationship into an intimate one. The Commission said whilst opening negotiations on a project that was purported to be of help to the entirety of Ghanaians, Dr Anane turned the official relationship into an intimate one. It noted that various e-mails from the Minister to Ms O?Brian indicated that he was unable to separate his private life from his official duties, and this amounted to a conflict of interest.
Ms Bossman said it is the Commission?s understanding that the state deploys a formal procedure for issuing a letter of intent for entering into a Memorandum of Understanding for the third party. She said this procedure will normally require authorisation from cabinet and eventually, if necessary, be confirmed by Parliament. She observed that Dr Anane?s conduct of issuing a letter of intent and MOU without following the proper procedure was therefore irregular and amounted to abuse of power.
Ms Bossman said on the allegation of corruption and kickbacks, there was not enough evidence to support the claim that between 2001- 2004, state monies totalling $126,560,000 were used to cover lodging, boarding, travelling and miscellaneous expenses of Ms O?Brian.
"On the contrary, the Commission finds that evidence available does not support the allegations that the various remittances of Ms O?Brian by Dr Anane came from state coffers," she added.
Explaining further, she said a total amount of $100,000 came out of Collins Owusu Doudu?s credit card while the remainder came from Dr Anane?s resources, including $16,000 allegedly coming from his wife.
She said all evidence shows that Ms O?Brian visited the Minister and stayed or lodged with him at a hotel at the expense of the Minister. She said there was no evidence to show that on either of the occasions, any of the expenses was charged to the state. She said, Anane claimed that he settled the bills through his per diem.
Comments
Post a Comment