The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously upheld the decision of the High Court which quashed the findings of perjury and conflict of interest by the Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) against the former Minister of Transportation, Dr Richard Anane. It, however, upheld an application filed by CHRAJ which challenged the decision of the High Court judge to interpret “complaint" in Article 21 (a) of the 1992 Constitution. According to the court which was presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Wood, "that decision is in conflict with the exclusive jurisdiction of this court, under Article 30 of the 1992 Constitution, to interpret the Constitution". The court, which had Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Dr Justice Date Bah, Mr Justice Julius Ansah and Mr Justice R. T. Aninakwah as members, has, therefore, decided to interpret the meaning of 'complaint' and give its judgement on it. "In relation to Article 21 (a) of the 1992 Constitution, this court is exercising the powers of the trial court to refer to the Supreme Court the following issue which has arisen from the facts of this case for determination, pursuant to article 130 (2): "For a complaint within the meaning of Article 218 (a) of the 1992 Constitution to form the basis for investigation by CHRAJ, must it be made by an identifiable individual or corporate body and lodged with the commission or are complaints made through the media and other public fora regarding violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, injustice, corruption, abuse of power and unfair treatment of any person by a public officer in the exercise of his official duties adequate bases for the institution of investigation, by CHRAJ?" The CHRAJ had filed an application praying the Supreme Court to quash the decision of the High Court which quashed findings of perjury and conflict of interest against Dr Anane. But the Supreme Court held a different view and stated that it would give its reasons for its orders in its final judgement after the parties had made legal arguments on the matter. It, accordingly, ordered the Attorney General, CHRAJ and Dr Anane 14 days to submit written legal arguments on the issue referred to the Supreme Court. The case was, therefore, adjourned to November 21, 2007. The CHRAJ, some time last year, made adverse findings of conflict of interest, abuse of office and perjury against Dr Anane. Dissatisfied with CHRAJ's findings, Dr Anane contested them at the High Court where the decision of CHRAJ was quashed. However, CHRAJ took the matter to the Supreme Court for its decisions to be reaffirmed. Source: Daily Graphic