GMA HOT AS SUPREME COURT THROW OUT SUIT

By Felix Engsalige Nyaaba

The Supreme Court yesterday by a  unanimously  decision threw  out  an application  on notice of prohibition and of bias filed by  the Ghana Medical Association against an Accra High Court judge,  in the case in which lawyer Chris Ackumey  has sued  the Ghana Medical Association (GMA) and its executive members for illegal strike actions  in the country.

The Supreme Court said, the issue of bias raised by the GMA against the High Court Judge was premature and has the tendency of delaying the court process and therefore according dismissed it for lack of legal merits.

The Supreme Court action followed an application for interlocutory injunction filed by Mr. Chris Ackumey at Accra High Court, sometime in November last year against the Ghana Medical Association, its president, Dr. Emmanuel Adom Winful and the deputy General secretary, Dr. Lawrence Serebour, for staging a strike action contrary to the 1992 constitution which prohibits them from going on any form of strike.

However, during the trial of the case before Mr. Justice E.K Dzakpasu, counsel for the GMA raised preliminary objection to the legal capacity of lawyer Ackumey to sue the defendants.

Following that objection, the trial judge adjourned the case to give a ruling on the preliminary objection and further made a statement which the defence believed was prejudicial and amounted to bias against them.

According to the facts, the trial judge before adjourning the case for a ruling stated that, he would continue to hear the case at his court even in any event the ruling goes in favour of the plaintiff.

But the defence through their legal counsel, Mr. Nene Amegashie filed an application on notice for prohibition and of bias invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for an order to prohibit the High Court trial judge, from continuing to sit on the case following his comment.

According to the defence , they do not expect  to receive any  fair trial in the case if Justice Dzakpasu  is allow to  continue to hear the case in his court.

But the Supreme Court in a five member panel presided over by Professor Justice Date Baah, said the issues raised by counsel for the defendants in the case was premature and that there was no any element of bias whatsoever in the comment.

According to the Supreme Court , the High Court trial judge has discretional powers  on the case and the mere statement  that the court would continue to hear the case even if the plaintiff won the preliminary objection ruling do not amount to personal interest in the case.

The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the application, saying it does not merit in law and that the application was premature and could not stand the test of law of bias.

The Supreme Court also order that the High Court judge , Mr. Justice E.K Dzakpasu should be allowed  to continue to hear the case, and urged the defence to go back to the High Court.

Doctors in the country sometime last year went on strike following their inability to reach a consensus between them and the Fair Wages Commission over their migration on to the Single Spine Salary Structure programme.

Their action received wide condemnation from all corners in the country as people lost their lives as a result.

Following that, lawyer Ackumey sued the GMA for a declaration that, organizations providing Essential Services as defined by ACT 651 AND li 1833 are prohibited from proceeding on strike irrespective of the merits of their cause or grievance.

He is also asking for a declaration that the strike action portray the defendants action and conduct as irresponsible, malicious vexatious willfully oppressive and inimical to the security safety and wellbeing of the public and therefore the public interest.

Lawyer Ackumey is also seeking for  an order removing all the present executives of the Ghana Medical Association as presently constituted.

He is further seeking for a perpetual injunction restraining the Ghana Medical Association and their members from engaging in restricting the normal services they provide or diminishing their output or engaging in a work to rule a go slow or a sit down strike or any conduct called a strike as defined by ACT165.the application stemmed out from the strike action by Doctors in the country sometime last year for about four weeks.

The Supreme Court ruling had therefore paved the way for the case to be heard at the High Court where it would be determine whether doctors in the country could continue to go on strike and allow innocent people to perish or die.