The Attorney General’s Department is seeking an early end to the application before the Human Right Court asking it to compel the Commission of Enquiry for the creation of new regions to extend its consultation to the southern part of the Volta Region.
The suit filed by the Chief of Srogbe, Torgbi Kpatamia IV, and five others is also for the court to order the Commission to hold the hearings on whether a new region should be carved out of the present Volta Region after their concerns for hearing were ignored.
The applicants contended that the manner in which the consultaition was done was prejudicial because it did not afford the residents of the southern part the opportunity to be heard.
But, in court yesterday, the AG, represented by Jonathan Acquah, argued that the application did not deserve to be heard, and prayed for it to be dismissed.
Mr Acquah said the issues being raised were moot because the time set for hearings in the Volta Region had passed, adding that even though the application was filed on January 18, the AG received it on January 22, 2018, two clear days after the hearings were completed, a development he prayed the court not to entertain.
The State Attorney, however, questioned the basis for the decision of the applicants to sue the Chairman of the Commission of Enquiry and the Minister for Regional Reorganization, arguing that Article 279 (2) of the 1992 Constitution precludes Commissions of Enquiry from being sued for their work.
“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,” Mr Acquah said.
He further argued that the applicants had failed to make a case against the Minister for Regional Reorganization and so should not have sued him, but instead their concern was to be directed to the AG.
Opposition
While opposing the arguments of the AG, lawyer for the applicants, Albert Quarshiga, said their case was tied to the six-month mandate of the Commission, which is yet to expire.
According to him, the excluded areas of the region could not be denied hearing simply because the five days the Commission has allocated for hearings in the region has elapsed.
Lawyer Quarshiga says he is convinced hearings can still be held in the ignored parts of the Volta Region, emphasizing that the Commission could return to the region and hold the hearings if ordered by the court.
He also contested the claim that the Constitution grants the Commission immunity 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 could appeal to the Court of Appeal, the findings of the Commission of Enquiry under Article 5 of the Constitution would be difficult to contest because it is not against anyone.
He indicated that the applicants were challenging the decision not to hold hearings close to them because that contravenes the law that set up the Commission, hence the Commission is being sued for breaching its own Constitutional Instrument.
Concerning the minister, counsel admitted that they had no case against the Minister and as such would have no difficulty if that said about him was struck out.
The court presided over by Justice Gifty Agyei-Addo would decide on the objection on March 23, 2018.
<<Print>>