Eleven workers’ unions battling the government over the management of their Second Tier Pension Funds in court have asked the Chief Justice (CJ) to remove the judge handling the case because they claim he is ‘biased.’
According to the Health Sector Occupational Pension Scheme, Ghana Educational Service (GES), Occupational Pension Scheme and the Hedge Master Trust Occupational Pensions Scheme – which are representatives of the defendants in the case entitled: ‘The Attorney-General Versus Health Workers’ Union and 11 Others’ – Justice Saeed K. Gyan’s conduct in the case had made them “apprehensive.”
Apprehension
“Your Ladyship, the way and manner in which Justice Saeed K. Gyan is conducting the case made the defendants very apprehensive about the inclination of the presiding judge to dispense real and effective justice in the matter,” they stated in their petition to Chief Justice Georgina Wood on April 10, 2015.
They claimed that “Right from the outset, the presiding judge has demonstrated an inclination or preference for the case of the plaintiff and to this end, accords more attention to the counsel for the plaintiff, the Hon. Deputy Attorney-General.”
Interlocutory Injunction
The petitioners pointed out to the Chief Justice that during the hearing of an application for interlocutory injunction to restrain the workers from continuing with their strike – which they said had even been called off – the judge allegedly “accorded the Deputy AG ample room and time to argue what he described as legal points not contained in his written statement of case.”
They said when their counsel sought to reply to the same points that the Deputy AG had raised orally in court, the judge “fiercely prevented him from doing so,” adding, “this led to arguments between the judge and our counsel, a situation which ultimately compelled our counsel to curtail his arguments.”
Fair Treatment
They said all parties who appear before a judge must be assured of an equal and fair treatment but they did not appear to find that posture in the presiding judge, who was recently appointed to the Court of Appeal by President John Dramani Mahama.
The workers said that from the pleadings filed by the respective parties, the question as to what the meaning of ‘employer’ in terms of Act 766 is, and who has the right to set up an occupational pension scheme was at the centre of the dispute, but the judge, “in an interlocutory ruling striking out the Bank of Ghana from the suit, seems to have prejudged that critical issue.
“Even though no evidence has been led on the issue and no legal arguments have been advanced on same, the judge in his ruling on February 16, 2015, stated that the government was the ‘declared presumed employer’”.
Presumed Employer
They said they were at a loss as to how the judge said the government was the ‘declared or presumed employer’ when the definition of employer in Section 211 of Act 766 is unequivocal, adding, “Respectfully, we find the disposition and statement by the presiding judge in the matter so far, to be potentially detrimental to the services of true justice in the matter.”
They alerted the Chief Justice that the outcome of the case was going to have significant implications on the lives and future of many people, particularly civil and public servants who served the nation for many years.
Social Implications
“The issue of the management of pension funds including legal adjudication over the rights of workers must be carefully handled, else the whole nation stands to suffer in the long run. Expediency, with the greatest respect, cannot assume precedence over the rights of workers, which have taken many long years to vindicate,” the petition indicated.
The Unions
According to the leaders, they represented all the defendant unions except the Judicial Service Staff Association of Ghana (JUSAG), which is the 11th defendant in the case.
The petition was jointly signed by Abu Kuntulo, General Secretary of Health Services Workers’ Union (HSWU) and Christian Addai-Poku, President of the Ghana National Association of Teachers.
<<Print>>