Court Throws Out CHRAJ! …Over Blay Buses’

An Accra High Court yesterday dismissed a motion for contempt brought against the Chairperson of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) Freddie Blay, by the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice ((CHRAJ).

According to the court, presided over by Justice George Koomson, CHRAJ failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Blay had ignored or refused to respond to its letters and subpoena.

Justice Koomson in his judgment held that Mr. Blay who is also the Board Chairman of the Ghana National Petroleum Corporation (GNPC), was being investigated not as Chairman of the NPP but as a public officer and wondered why officers of the Commission will direct the processes to the offices of the NPP and Daily Guide, a newspaper owed by the family of the supposed contemnor and not GNPC.

He said no evidence had been adduced by CHRAJ to show that Mr Blay received any notice or that anyone received such a petition on his behalf.

The court argued that unless the officers of CHRAJ were being mischievous, no rational person will act in such a manner.

He said the conduct of CHRAJ is incompetent and appalling indicating that such conducts should not be entertained by public officers.

The court subsequently dismissed the application for contempt and acquitted and discharged Mr. Blay.

A cost of GH¢ 5,000 was awarded against CHRAJ.

The Commission had filed a motion at the court to commit Mr. Blay for contempt after they claimed he failed to respond to several requests from the Commission to provide it with information about the 275 buses he promised to donate to his party’s constituencies ahead of the NPP delegates’ conference in July 2018.

They attached documents alleging that the NPP Chairman had received the motion but ‘failed’, ‘refused’ and or ‘neglected’ to oblige the Commission with his comments as requested and subsequently asked the court to hold Mr. Blay in contempt.

Mr. Blay through his lawyers led by Nana Obiri Boahen vehemently denied the allegations by CHRAJ, saying he was never served with any of the said proceedings.

Although he was not served with the processes filed by lawyers for CHRAJ, he went ahead to respond to the application, a scenario lawyers for CHRAJ disagree.