CHRAJ wins case against former ADB worker
Gilbert Boyefio
02/08/2008
An Accra High Court presided by His Lordship, Justice Lartey-Young, on Tuesday ruled in favour of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, in an application for certiorari brought by Magnus Afenu, a former employee of the Agricultural Development Bank and a petitioner.
Passing his judgment, the trial judge noted that on the evidence and facts before the court, CHRAJ's recommendation cannot be found wanting on any of the three grounds for judicial review, namely, illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality. He cited an English case titled the Civil Service Unions versus Minister for the Civil Service to buttress his point.
The judge also held that the petitioner, Magnus Afenu, was given a fair hearing by the Disciplinary Committee of the ADB before his dismissal, and consequently rejected the submission by his lawyer, Felix Kwabi, that sole culpability of the acts committed rested with the ADB's Branch Manager at Hohoe. No cost was however awarded as the judge pointed out that he has taken into consideration the petitioner’s financial circumstances.
In an interview with The Saturday Statesman, Kofi Nyanteh Akuffo, lawyer for CHRAJ, said "The judgment, in my view, evidently fortifies the assertion that investigations by the Commission are conducted as painstakingly and comprehensively as possible."
He said CHRAJ execute its Constitutional mandate with the cardinal principles of justice and fairness, which is placed firmly at the hub of all its activities. According to him, "the Commission as an administrative body, discharges its duties in a fair and reasonable manner and adhere strictly to the requirements imposed by law".
On October 31, 1997, Magnus Afenu, a dismissed Accountant of the Agricultural Development Bank at Hohoe, lodged a formal complaint with CHRAJ alleging his dismissal from the bank was wrongful, an act of victimization and that he was not given a fair hearing.
CHRAJ exercising its mandate under the 1992 Constitution constituted a panel hearing on the matter. At the end of the panel hearing, the Commission came to the conclusion that the petition of Magnus Afenu was unmeritorious and therefore dismissed it. Mr Afenu not satisfied with the Commission’s recommendation instituted the court action against them.
Mr Afenu is of the view that CHRAJ during the panel hearing committed a procedural error by allowing evidence to be given on a matter which was not essentially before it for determination. He further pointed out that the Commission rejected his request to tender his statement dated September 22, 1995 which was a response to queries raised by the Internal Audit Team.
Lawyer for CHRAJ, Kofi Akuffo, argued that the application is baseless. He said it is nothing short of subterfuge carefully crafted to hoodwink the court to re-hear the matter, noting that, "this should be resisted." He explained that Magnus Afenu should not be allowed to hide behind unequal doses of semantic analysis, pedantry and technicality to avoid culpability.
Further in its statement of case in opposition, CHRAJ is of the view that there exist only three grounds for which a decision can be challenged by judicial review, namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
Magnus Afedu was interdicted by the ADB on September 25, 1992, for operating a current account at Social Security Bank, New Tema Branch, on which he drew various cheques and purchased at Hohoe Branch, taking advantage of his position as Branch Accountant and giving value to the cheques, eight of which were returned unpaid.
On June 18, 1996, he was subsequently dismissed with effect from the date he was interdicted. The reasons given included the role he played in the purchase of the cheques from G-Way Enterprise totaling 67.8 million old Ghana cedis, which breach the Bank’s regulations and also led to the loss of the same amount to the Bank.
Magnus Afenu petitioned the Bank’s Managing Director and the Board Chairman but both petitions were dismissed. It was after these that he petitioned CHRAJ.
02/08/2008
An Accra High Court presided by His Lordship, Justice Lartey-Young, on Tuesday ruled in favour of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, in an application for certiorari brought by Magnus Afenu, a former employee of the Agricultural Development Bank and a petitioner.
Passing his judgment, the trial judge noted that on the evidence and facts before the court, CHRAJ's recommendation cannot be found wanting on any of the three grounds for judicial review, namely, illegality, procedural impropriety and irrationality. He cited an English case titled the Civil Service Unions versus Minister for the Civil Service to buttress his point.
The judge also held that the petitioner, Magnus Afenu, was given a fair hearing by the Disciplinary Committee of the ADB before his dismissal, and consequently rejected the submission by his lawyer, Felix Kwabi, that sole culpability of the acts committed rested with the ADB's Branch Manager at Hohoe. No cost was however awarded as the judge pointed out that he has taken into consideration the petitioner’s financial circumstances.
In an interview with The Saturday Statesman, Kofi Nyanteh Akuffo, lawyer for CHRAJ, said "The judgment, in my view, evidently fortifies the assertion that investigations by the Commission are conducted as painstakingly and comprehensively as possible."
He said CHRAJ execute its Constitutional mandate with the cardinal principles of justice and fairness, which is placed firmly at the hub of all its activities. According to him, "the Commission as an administrative body, discharges its duties in a fair and reasonable manner and adhere strictly to the requirements imposed by law".
On October 31, 1997, Magnus Afenu, a dismissed Accountant of the Agricultural Development Bank at Hohoe, lodged a formal complaint with CHRAJ alleging his dismissal from the bank was wrongful, an act of victimization and that he was not given a fair hearing.
CHRAJ exercising its mandate under the 1992 Constitution constituted a panel hearing on the matter. At the end of the panel hearing, the Commission came to the conclusion that the petition of Magnus Afenu was unmeritorious and therefore dismissed it. Mr Afenu not satisfied with the Commission’s recommendation instituted the court action against them.
Mr Afenu is of the view that CHRAJ during the panel hearing committed a procedural error by allowing evidence to be given on a matter which was not essentially before it for determination. He further pointed out that the Commission rejected his request to tender his statement dated September 22, 1995 which was a response to queries raised by the Internal Audit Team.
Lawyer for CHRAJ, Kofi Akuffo, argued that the application is baseless. He said it is nothing short of subterfuge carefully crafted to hoodwink the court to re-hear the matter, noting that, "this should be resisted." He explained that Magnus Afenu should not be allowed to hide behind unequal doses of semantic analysis, pedantry and technicality to avoid culpability.
Further in its statement of case in opposition, CHRAJ is of the view that there exist only three grounds for which a decision can be challenged by judicial review, namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety.
Magnus Afedu was interdicted by the ADB on September 25, 1992, for operating a current account at Social Security Bank, New Tema Branch, on which he drew various cheques and purchased at Hohoe Branch, taking advantage of his position as Branch Accountant and giving value to the cheques, eight of which were returned unpaid.
On June 18, 1996, he was subsequently dismissed with effect from the date he was interdicted. The reasons given included the role he played in the purchase of the cheques from G-Way Enterprise totaling 67.8 million old Ghana cedis, which breach the Bank’s regulations and also led to the loss of the same amount to the Bank.
Magnus Afenu petitioned the Bank’s Managing Director and the Board Chairman but both petitions were dismissed. It was after these that he petitioned CHRAJ.
Comments
Post a Comment