Charles Bissue directs lawyers to withdraw motion for Judicial Review against OSP

Former Secretary to the dissolved Inter-Ministerial Committee on Illegal Mining (IMCIM), Charles Cromwell Bissue has directed his lawyers to withdraw one of his two applications pending before the Human Rights Division of the High Court in Accra against the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).

The application in question is the motion seeking for a Judicial Review which was filed on June 2, 2023.

Mr. Bissue’s application for Judicial Review was anchored on the grounds that, the OSP breached the provisions of Act 959 when it investigated only him to the exclusion of Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye PI, “for the alleged offence when the latter had admitted that they were involved in the commission of the offence.”

It was also his contention that, the Respondent (OSP) “acted irrationally and unfairly in its investigation of only him for the alleged offence when the Petition, the basis of the said investigation was authored by the

incumbent Special Prosecutor, Mr. Kissi Agyebeng.”

The former Secretary to the IMCIM also contended that “the Respondent acted irrationally and unfairly in investigating only the Applicant for the alleged offence to the exclusion of Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye PI, especially when the predecessor of the Respondent, Mr. Martin Amidu admitted that the Respondent, during his tenure, was investigating both the Applicant (Bissue) and Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye PI, for the alleged offence.”

In Court on Wednesday, November 1, when the case before the Human Rights Court ‘1’ presided over by Justice Barbara Tetteh-Charway was called, Lawyer for Charles Bissue Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah informed the Court about his client’s instructions to discontinue the action.

He said, his client wants to focus on the other leg of the Application for enforcement of his fundamental rights which was pending before the Human Rights Court ‘2’ as that will give him the same outcome.

Per the short notice of when the information for withdrawal was communicated to him, Counsel prayed the court for an adjournment in order to have a proper conference with his client and for further action.

“The Applicant (Bissue) has intimated to me at a very short notice this morning (Wednesday, November 1), that he is of the considered view that we should focus on the proceedings of Human Rights Court ‘2’ which may give the same results,” Lawyer Baffour Awuah told the Court.

He, therefore, prayed that “as counsel, I will want a short adjournment to have conference with him (Applicant) based on the advice if he still insists on the discontinuation, we will file the necessary processes pursuant to the rule and give effect to his wishes.”

Justice Barbara Tetteh-Charway upon hearing counsel’s submissions adjourned the case to November 8, 2023.

Lawyers of the OSP were present in Court.

Reliefs

The Application for judicial review is seeking the following reliefs against the OSP.

a) A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of section 3(1)(b) of Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), it is mandatory for the Office of the Special Prosecutor to investigate and/or prosecute both the public officer and private person(s) involved in the commission of the alleged offence.

b) A declaration that accordingly, any investigations of the Applicant by the Respondent must of necessity include investigations of Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye PI.

c) A declaration that the investigation of only the Applicant by the Respondent, without investigating Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye PI, is contrary to section 3(1)(b) of Act 959 and therefore unlawful.

d) A declaration that the Respondent's investigation of only the Applicant to the exclusion of Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye PI was tainted by his Conflict of Interest as the Petition, the basis of the investigation, was authored by the incumbent Special Prosecutor, Mr. Kissi Agyebeng.

e) An order of certiorari directed at the Respondent, quashing the outcome of the aforesaid investigation of only the Applicant by the Respondent for being contrary to section 3(1)(b) of Act 959.

f.An order of prohibition directed at the Respondent, to restrain the Respondent from prosecuting the Applicant on the basis of the aforesaid investigation of only the Applicant, done by the Respondent.

g) An order of prohibition directed at the Respondent, to restrain the Respondent from investigating and/or prosecuting the Applicant to the exclusion of Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye PI.