An Accra Fast Track High Court on Tuesday granted a Review Application brought before it by Dr Richard Anane, former Road Transport Minister, and therefore quashed the decision of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) of September 15, 2006 against him. The Court, presided over by Mr Justice Baffoe Bonnie, an Appeal Court Judge with an additional responsibility on the matter as a High Court Judge, stated that the Commission ought to have based its investigations into allegations against Dr Anane on a formal complaint. The Court held that by conducting its own investigations against the former Minister without a complaint emanating from any complainant, CHRAJ was arrogating to itself constitutional mandate outside its jurisdiction. The Court stated that by so doing, CHRAJ was behaving like the proverbial octopus, "stretching its tentacles to look for complaints to investigate," which act would be a "recipe for chaos". It pointed out that even though it was an indisputable fact that CHRAJ was clothed with the Constitutional mandate to investigate allegations, there were constitutional provisions that made the Commission an inferior investigative body with limited jurisdiction, and therefore had to work within the confines of the law. The Court therefore said, by carrying out its own investigation into the matter without being petitioned by any identifiable complainant, CHRAJ was wrongfully arrogating to itself powers it did not have. It consequently ruled that the Commission's decision in respect of its investigations against Dr Anane "was null and void", and therefore quashed it. Turning to the Commission's recommendation that the former Minister apologized to Parliament for committing perjury by lying to it when he appeared before the Select Committee on Appointments, the Court was of the view that CHRAJ erred. The Court stated that the Commission had no constitutional mandate to investigate Dr Anane on perjury because it was not set up to look into matters on perjury. It, however, stated that if it wanted to go on with investigation into allegation of perjury against him, CHRAJ should have made the former Minister aware in order for him to defend himself. The Court was therefore of the view that CHRAJ's findings and recommendations in respect of perjury against Dr Anane "were afflicted by illegality and procedural impropriety". Following media reports of allegations of corruption, conflict of interest and abuse of power against Dr Anane, CHRAJ instituted a full-scale investigation into those allegations after conducting a preliminary one. On September 15, 2006, the Commission found Dr Anane guilty on some of the allegations and recommended to the President that he be dismissed from office. Before the President could act on CHRAJ's recommendations, the former Minister resigned his position and declared his intention to "contest" the ruling of the Commission. A week after the Commission's ruling, Mr J. K. Agyemang, counsel for Dr Anane, filed a Certiorari Application at the Fast Track Court praying the court to review CHRAJ's decision by quashing it. Dr Philip Ebow Bondzie-Simpson, Counsel for the Commission, filed his response which finally led to the court's ruling on Tuesday in favour of Dr Anane. After the ruling, the former Minister who was accompanied by Mrs Mercy Anane, his wife, friends and relatives, came out of the courtroom with tears of joy. Ms Anna Bossman, Acting Commissioner of CHRAJ told newsmen that the Commission would seek a review of the ruling because its mandate to investigate allegations emanates from the 1992 Constitution. Source: GNA