Executive Director for ASEPA, Mensah Thompson
• ASEPA has described a response by CHRAJ to its petition as unfortunate
• The Commission declined to probe the Chief Justice over allegations of bribery and corruption
• CHRAJ explained that ASEPA had already petitioned the presidency over the same matter
The Alliance for Social Equity and Public Accountability has described the response and posturing of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice’s (CHRAJ) not to be probe the Chief Justice as disappointing.
This comes after ASEPA had, in an earlier petition, requested CHRAJ to investigate allegations of corruption and bribery meted out against the Chief Justice under Article 218(a) and (e) of the 1992 Constitution.
But the Commission in a response to the request, declined to conduct an investigation on the basis that the ASEPA had initially petitioned the Presidency which had commenced the process of an earlier request by ASEPA on the same matter.
“Since the matter is pending in the appropriate constitutional forum, the commission, in the exercise of its discretion under Section 13 of Act 456, hereby ceases to investigate the complaint any further as the invocation of the Article 456 proceedings has effectively taken the matter out of the forum of the commission,” CHRAJ explained in a letter addressed to ASEPA.
The Executive Director for ASEPA, Mensah Thompson, reacting to the development in an interaction with Citi News, said the Commission had violated the rights of the plaintiffs.
“If you read the case in point that CHRAJ cited as the basis for truncating this process, they claim that when a plaintiff sues the same defendant in two courts, the plaintiff is elected to stay one of the proceedings and so when CHRAJ during their preliminary investigation realized that another constitutional process has been activated, did they written us the plaintiffs to stay one of the proceedings and proceed with the other.”
He added that “So, with their own explanation, and their own case in point CHRAJ decided to unilaterally, violate the right of the plaintiffs by deciding for us which of the two processes to stay. We find this very unfortunate and disappointing.”
