Finance Minister in court over CHRAJ’s judgement on asset declaration

The Minister of Finance, Mr Ken Ofori-Atta, is challenging portions of the judgement delivered by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) which said he had not fully declared his assets.
Mr Ofori-Atta is praying the High Court to grant an order of prohibition directed at CHRAJ from carrying out investigations into a case of non-disclosure of all his assets and liabilities.
The CHRAJ, in a judgement dated December 22, 2017, dismissed a conflict of interest complaint made against Mr Ofori-Atta by Mr Yaw Brogya Genfi over the issuance of seven, 10 and 15-year bonds.

However, after its investigations of allegations made against the minister, CHRAJ gave wide-ranging directives in relation to the bond issuance processes to ensure transparency and clarity.



Judicial review

In an application for judicial review, Mr Ofori-Atta is praying the High Court to declare that the purported findings contained in the December 22, 2017 CHRAJ decision claiming that he failed to disclose all his assets, as required by Article 286 of the 1992 Constitution, was a gross infringement on his rights and his right to a fair hearing, as enshrined in the Constitution.
That, the applicant noted, was particularly because the issue of assets declaration was not the subject matter in the complaint, no notice was served on him and also he was denied a fair hearing.

Mr Ofori-Atta is, accordingly, praying the court to hold that CHRAJ’s failure to give him a fair hearing was unlawful, arbitrary, capricious and beyond the jurisdiction of CHRAJ.

He is also seeking a declaration that the purported ruling of the CHRAJ was bad “on grounds of unreasonableness, to wit an illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety”.

The applicant is further seeking for an order of certiorari to quash or set aside the purported finding of CHRAJ that the applicant failed to disclose all his assets, as required by Article 286 of the 1992 Constitution, especially when that was not the subject matter in the substantive case.

Source:www.graphic.com.gh