The Commissioner for Human Rights and Administrative Justice ( CHRAJ), Mr. Emile Short, last Tuesday, March 16, 2010 betrayed his own bias in the Mabey & Johnson saga before him when he said during a TV interview that objections raised by the accused persons and which he had referred to the Supreme Court had no basis and thus the court will rule against it.
He further claimed that documents he received from the UK indicated that monies paid to the applicants were bribes.
 This bias comment on Metro TV's “Good Evening Ghana” programme by the CHRAJ boss has seen six of the accused persons dashing to an Accra High Court, praying it to prohibit the Commission from any further investigation or hearing into the case.
Alhaji Boniface Abubakar Saddique, Mr. Kwame Peprah, Dr. Ato Quarshie, Brigadier-General Lord Attivor, Alhaji Amadu Seidu and Alhaji Baba Kamara, in their application to the High Court say that by his pronouncement on TV, Emile Short has prejudiced the matter before him, an indication that they would not receive a fair hearing from the Commission.
During the TV programme, Mr. Emile Short told the host, Paul Adom- Otchere, that the objection raised about the jurisdiction of the CHRAJ to investigate Baba Kamara, who was not a public office holder at the time the bribe was allegedly given had no basis but he has sent the objection to the Supreme Court though he knows very well that it would be dismissed.
An affidavit in support of the motion for judicial review which was sworn on behalf of the six by Mr. Kwame Peprah held that it was wrong for Mr. Short to pre-judge a matter he had taken to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
 ”That I am advised by counsel that, that ruling delivered by CHRAJ was most improper in that having come to the conclusion that there was an issue for interpretation of the constitution by the Supreme Court, CHRAJ's only duty was to comply with the provision of the 1992 Constitution and refer the issue to the Supreme Court but not to offer an opinion on same,” the affidavit said.
“The inference was that the case against the ex-public officials which was raised on our behalf would not be referred to the Supreme Court. I am advised by counsel that this was most strange in that CHRAJ had reserved ruling on the case for March 29, 2010,” the affidavit in support stated.
“That Commissioner Short further stated that even though he had referred the issue of whether the CHRAJ could investigate a private person for interpretation to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court would dismiss the said preliminary objection.
“Indeed he went into details and explained the objection raised by 2nd applicant which he described as the 'the Baba Kamara issue”.
“He added that he could on his own have dismissed the preliminary objection but he had to refer the issue for interpretation only because the Supreme Court is the only body mandated to interpret the Constitution and not because it had any merit.
“Indeed, to a question asked as to whether he was hopeful that the Supreme Court would endorse his view and dismiss the preliminary objection raised, he answered in one word 'definitely',” the affidavit said.
The applicants said a copy of the recording of the interview had been obtained and a careful perusal of it indicated that Mr. Short was most “unprofessional” in his conduct and his comment was intended to incite the public against them.
“That I am advised by counsel and believe same to be true that it is most unprofessional for a judicial or quasi-judicial official such as Commissioner Short to discuss the views of the panel pending the case before it with a third party and on national television and that the conduct of Commissioner Short, who stated that he was speaking for and on behalf of the Commission, is such that we cannot be guaranteed a fair hearing before CHRAJ,” the affidavit in support stated.
The applicants further held that during the one hour programme on T.V, Mr. Short, obviously to put pressure on the Supreme Court and to incite the public against the accused persons, Mr Short stated among other things that documents he had received from the U.K indicated that monies paid to the applicants were bribe. They hold that by this comment, Mr. Short had already pronounced the accused persons guilty.
The applicants said by a letter dated March 17, 2010 to the Commission, they requested that both the Commission and the Commissioner cease any further hearing or investigations into the case but the Commission has not responded, hence court case.
