<<Print>>

Chapter 23 of the Constitution dictates that the findings of a commission of inquiry (one set up under this provision is quasi-judicial) become a judgment of the High Court after six months.

But that's if and only if the report is published together with a white paper. Thereafter the person against whom adverse findings have been made has the right of appeal, if aggrieved, to the Court of Appeal within three months.

Guess what, the President is not obliged to publish the report and issue a white paper. He has the option to simply issue a statement within six months of receipt of the Report explaining he does not intend to publish the report. He will simply justify why.

In seeking to be president, however, it is instructive to note that adverse findings of non- judicial or non-quasi-judicial commissions or committees do still appear to serve to disqualify when confirmed by a White Paper.

So you see, the potential implications could be 'tsunamic' for people like Nana Addo. If President John Mahama and his NDC seek a rather expensive political mischief, they will elect the option not to publish the report at all or publish it so late.

Such move will put Nana Addo in a most difficult situation. It is no surprise then that his legal team seem to want to activate the courts in what would be a necessary innovative move to preempt any future adverse acts.

The Commissioner was by law (C.I. 65 - Commissions of Inquiry {Practice and Procedure} Rules, 2010) required to submit his report within 60 days upon completion of work. He submitted it on May 20, 2015 and a decision to or not to publish must be known by October 20, 2015. Since its contents are known to all now, any citizen could attempt to block Nana Akuffo Addo from filing for the 2016 presidential elections using the report.

There is no doubt, however, that non-publication and non-issue of a white paper couldn't operate to stop a possible legal challenge of the said finding, especially when Nana Addo never had the opportunity to be heard by the Commission.

The finding might further be weakened by the fact that Nana Addo actually officially indicated his availability and readiness to tell his side of the story to the Commission if it was minded to invite him to speak to the matters for which he had direct conduct as AG and was accused of wrongdoing by equally celebrated lawyer and former CEO of GNPC Tsatsu Tsikata.

The Commission suggests it had enough documents to rely on. The question then would be why it needed to invite as many as 11 witnesses over this matter?

Flagrant breach of rules of natural justice
A cardinal rule of law is what is known as the natural justice principles. The first part of that twin principle which is at the heart of the principle for procedural fairness is rendered in Latin as "audi alteram paterm" - a man shall not be condemned unheard.

The courts do not hesitate to strike down as illegal most actions that violate the rules of natural justice. I submit that key actors in particular judgment debts who were not given a chance at the commission will not struggle to convince a court to set aside the findings against them, if they are minded to consider such findings as adverse with the attendant implications.

By the unimpeachable famous judgment of Justice Samuel Marfo-Sau in the case brought by the state against Dr. Charles Wereko-Brobby and Mr. Kwadwo Mpiani on the back of the findings of the Ghana @ 50 Commission, it is now a given that none will engage in a fruitless wasteful endeavour of mounting a prosecution (and in this case of willfully causing financial loss to the state) on the findings of a commission of inquiry.

Big mess
But it gets murkier as even an unimaginable white paper rejection of this finding will be rejected by Nana Addo. Accepting such reduces him to a near pardoned convict. The damaging propaganda value going into the 2016 elections is clear.

So this is mess however you look at it. Let the games begin and shall we say “fiat justitia ruat caelum”- let complete justice be down even though the heavens come down?

In my next article of my analysis of selected portions of the leaked report, I point out serious fundamental procedural and constitutional issues in the Commission's findings on the Woyome Case. I also show how the state violated laws it is very familiar with in making the payment - a core inquiry so far missed by all who have dealt with that case.

I also ask and answer the question whether a Commission of Inquiry can purport to exercise appellate or supervisory jurisdiction over the High Court.