The Attorney General is seeking an early end to application for the hearing of Commission of enquiry for the creation of new regions to be extended to the Southern Volta.
The application was filed by Chief of Srogboe Torgbi Kpatamia IV and 5 others for the court to compel the Commission to hold the hearings on whether a new region should be carved out of the present Volta region after their concerns over the siting of venues for the hearing of were dismissed.
According to the applicants, the siting of the venues is prejudicial because they are remote from some parts of the Volta region and so would not afford the residents of those parts, the opportunity to be heard.
However, the AG represented by Jonathan Acquah thinks the application does not deserve to be heard and hence moved a preliminary legal objection on March 20, 2018 for the matter to be dismissed before it is even heard.
The move would be double jeopardy for the applicants whose letter asking the AG to intercede to get the Commission of enquiry to hold hearings close to them were ignored.
Arguing his objection, Jonathan Acquah said the issues being raised are moot because the time set for hearings in the Volta region has passed.
The hearings were held from January 16 to 20, 2018.
Even though the application was filed on January 18, Jonathan Acquah said the AG received the application on January 22, 2018, two clear days after the hearings were completed hence the application is late in the day.
He also questioned the basis for the decision of the applicants to sue the Chairman of the Commission of enquiry and the Minister for Regional Reorganization.
He said Article 279 (2) of the 1992 Constitution precludes Commissions of enquiry from being sued for their work.
The said provision reads "A sole commissioner or a member of a commission of inquiry shall not be liable to any action or suit in respect of any matter or thing done by him in the performance of his function as a commissioner or member."
The State Attorney argued that the said Article grants members of the Commission immunity from legal action.
He further argued that applicants have failed to make a case against the Minister for Regional Reorganization and so should not have sued him.
Jonathan Acquah argued that the said application should have been directed to the AG.
Responding to the arguments of the AG, lawyer for the applicants, Albert Quarshiga said their case is tied to the six month mandate of the Commission which is yet to expire.
He argued that the excluded areas of the Volta region cannot be denied hearing because the 5 days the Commission has allocated for hearings in the Volta region have passed.
Lawyer Quarshiga is convinced hearings can still be held in the ignored parts of the Volta region emphasizing that the Commission can return to the region and hold the hearings if the court orders it.
He also contested the claim that the Constitution grants the Commission imunity from legal action; arguing that the Commission was set up under Article 5 and not 279 of the 1992 Constitution.
Lawyer Quarshiga said even though persons unhappy with the findings of a Commission of enquiry under Article 279 can appeal to the Court of Appeals, the findings of the Commission of enquiry under Article 5 would be difficult to contest because it is not against anyone.
He indicated that the applicants are challenging the decision not to hold hearings close to them because it contravenes the law that set up the Commission; hence the Commission is being sued for breaching its own Constitutional Instrument.
The lawyer however admitted that they have no case against the Minister and would accept it if he is struck out of the case.
The court has set March 23, 2018 to rule on the objection
Beautiful Sena.
ReplyDeleteWell done.
But there was this stretch to the arguments concerning Article 5 and Article 279 that must be well trashed out.
In court yesterday, both Lawyers didn't fleece this point very well. Lawyer Quarshiega on his feet did make an attempt.
Article 5 and 279 are both to set up a commission.
The output of 5 is a referendum and the output of 279 is a report/findings to the President.
These is where the two Articles clearly departed.
Article 5 begins a process which must be free and fair; before, during and after it's output, which is a referendum. I cannot see an appeal against a referendum. I doubt if an Election Petition constitute an appeal in Law.
Therefore to extent that, the Commission's cannot be deemed to be free and fair at this stage, it is failing the onus of Article and preemptively against the outcome of that process which it is superintending. Hence the Applicants right to the Courts.
Article 279 outputs a finding/report to the President to which any person has right of appeal if there is or are any adverse findings against such a person.
The immunity of the commissioner in Article 279 is acceptable to me because, the commissioner needs a clear unencumbered mandate to work with. Otherwise, persons to whom adverse findings may be made would bog the work of the Commissioner under Article 279.
Thank you again Sena.