Lawyers of former Secretary to the dissolved Inter-Ministerial Committee on Illegal Mining (IMCIM) Charles Cromwell Bissue have described an application from the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) seeking to dismiss their suit as “grossly incompetent.”
While urging the Human Rights Division of the High Court in Accra to dismiss the OSP’s application, Lawyer Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah said, the OSP is using the “back door” to seek an outcome that the substantive suit was seeking to achieve.
Charles Bissue’s application is seeking an enforcement of his human rights against the OSP but the OSP after failing file it answer within time rather file an application seeking its dismissal.
In Court on Monday, the lawyers of the Charles Bissue led by Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah raised preliminary legal objection to the OSP’s notice filed on August 1, 2023 seeking to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the court to dismiss summarily the application filed by Charles Bissue on June 16.
OSPs request
Seth Ansong, who described himself as a Prosecutor from the office OSP while moving the motion for dismissal said, the application was filed on August 1, 2023.
“We have before this Honorable Court an application by way of a motion on notice filed before this court on August 1, 2023,” he said.
“This application seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to dismiss summarily the application filed by the Respondent-applicant (Charles Bissue) before this court on June 16,2023.”
Preliminary legal objection
Counsel for Charles Bissue while raising a preliminary legal objection to the OSPs motion said “The application is incompetent and very alien to the rules of practice and the established practice.”
Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah submitted that, they (OSP) filed the motion invoking the Human Rights jurisdiction of this Court but the practice is that, “if you consider same to be incompetent or for whatever reason does not invoke the jurisdiction, you have one or two choices to make.”
“You file a notice issuing preliminary legal objection or affidavit in opposition containing same. You don’t disregard the established procedure and file an application seeking to dismiss the suit under the inherent jurisdiction of the court,” and “then in the motion seeking to dismiss the motion you deposed extensively to facts which are invariably speaking to the merits of our application,” counsel submitted.
Counsel submitted further that, “If our application to enforce the applicant’s Human Rights were to be heard on its merit there can be only one outcome, a dismissal or a grant.”
This counsel argued that for the OSP “to file an application asking the court to dimiss its motion seeking to argue the merits of the application through the back door after the Respondent (OSP) had failed to file an application in opposition,” is alien.
While averting the court’s minds to the records, Counsel said “My Lord will discover that after the Respondent (OSP) failed to file their affidavit in answer to our motion, orders have been made which effectively bring the matter almost to an end.”
After point to statutory provisions, Article 33(2) of the 1992 Constitution and other decided cases of the Supreme Court, counsel for Charles Bissuesubmitted that, “All we are seeking for in this court is within your (Court) jurisdiction and the application to invoke your justification is grossly incompetent and should be dismissed.”
OSP Reply
Seth Ansong, the Prosecutor from the OSP’s office in his attempt to reply to the preliminary objection said, “We (OSP) are strongly opposed to the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the applicant respondent.”
He said “On the face of our motion filed before this court on August 1, 2023, we have indicated that we are invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to dismiss summarily the application filed by the applicant respondent.
More time
Justice Nicholas Mensah Abodakpi, wondered if counsel for the OSP had familiarized himself with provisions of Article 33 of the Constitution and other decided cases in matters of that nature.
Even though, the Prosecutor from the OSP responded in the affirmative, the court said “It is not common for the (Human Rights) Court to invoke its own inherent jurisdiction and dismiss a writ of Summons (in a manner the OSP is seeking).
The court said, the jurisprudence do not allow such application and that “You must come under a rule of court and so I will not permit you to continue because of the position I have taken in some ruling.”
Justice Abodakpi pointed to some Bank of Ghana’s case he had determined but the case traveled through to the Supreme Court where the apex court held that, the High Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter.
EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, reports that the case has been adjourned to October 26, 2023 for the OSP to reply to the preliminary objection.
Subject matter
Charles Bissue who is seeking for the enforcement of his human rights is asking for the following relief from the Human Rights
a). Quash or cancel the Arrest Warrant issued against the Applicant by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent
b). Quash the 1st Respondent’s Notice, declaring the Applicant wanted
c). Compel the 1st Respondent to comply with the provisions of L.I. 2374 by providing the Applicant with a copy of the Petitions, forming the basis of the investigations being conducted by the 1st Respondent in respect of which the Applicant is deemed to be a necessary person.
d). Prohibit the the 1st Respondent, pending the determination of Suit No. J/0328/2023, from applying for Arrest Warrants and hounding the Applicant in the name of investigations.
Source: Ghana/Starrfm.com.gh/103.5FM/Murtala Inusah
