SHOCK, DISBELIEF, AS SUPREME COURT RULES FOR JAKE.

By Felix Engsalige Nyaaba

There was total surprise amidst shaking of heads and murmering in disbelief by the general public who thronged the Supreme Court yesterday to hear the outcome of the case against Mr. Jake Otanka Obetsebi-Lamptey, Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in his attempt to purchase a state bungalow which he occupied when he was a minister of state.

Lawyers as well as journalist, who sat throughout the whole day at the Supreme Court were choked to their bones to the decision of the majority side of the nine member panel, saying the decision of the Supreme court would indirectly pave way for public officers who supposed to keep state property, to end up acquiring such public property to themselves.

According to a journalist who asked to remain in anonymity, the decision of the six majority of the Supreme Court would have negative ramification on the country in attempt to fight corruption in the public offices.

However, in a six majority against three, the supreme court dismissed the entire application filed by the two deputy Ministers, Mr. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa and Dr. Edward Omane Boamah, who at the time of instituting the action were not ministers, asking the court among others things to reverse ownership of bungalow No. 2 at Mungo Street, Ridge residential area in Accra.

The six majority led by Mr. Justice S.A Brobbey who is due for compulsory retirement today said, the applicants were at a wrong forum, stressing that the conflict of interest as reliefs sought by the applicant was within the domain of the Commission of Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) and that the Supreme Court has no mandate to hear such allegation been raised by the applicants.

The majority further averred that, the applicants have failed woefully to prove the allegation of bias, discrimination and arbitratory distribution of the state property and that the burden of prove of allegation per the evidence degree of the rules of the court rest on the applicants to prove such allegations.

On the issue of corruption and abuse of public office, the six majorities held that, the applicants in their own way failed to prove any element of corruption in the sale of the state bungalow to a private individual and that, the court cannot unjustifiably rule for any corruption allegation without substantiation infavour of the applicants.

According to the majority side of the Supreme Court, every state property, either in land or building has been vested into the hands of the president and that the sale of the bungalow by the Chairman of the Lands Commission was done in the name of the president who is the sole custodian of the state property.

In addition, the six majority of the Supreme Court argued that, the allegation issued raised by the applicants that the whole sale or lease of the state property did not pass through cabinet for approval was needless, because in their view the president by executive powers do not need the approval of the cabinet to offset any state property to an individual.

The majority said, the property though acquired by a private individual, it could be develop and benefit by the public, saying the three story building when put in place could house medical doctors in the public sector.

The six majority were Justice S.A Brobby, Mr. Justice Julius Ansah, Mr. Justice Mrs. Justice Sophia Adinyira , Jones Dotse, Mr. Justice , Paul Baffour Bonne and Ms Rose Comfort Owusu , who was absent but  had her views read on the majority  verdict on her behalf.

But the three minority led by Mr. Justice William Atuguba, disagreed with the majority side of the Supreme Court of the application.

The minority were of the view that, though the Lands Commission ha the mandate to sign and offset state property on or behalf of the president,  the sale of the bungalow to Mr. Jake Obetsebi Lamptey did not follow due process and that, the entire sale of  was null and void.

The minority argued that, the consitutio0n was very clear in the explanation that, state property  are vested into the hands of the president and for the kept for the use for the benefit or interest of the public interest.

According to the minority side of the Supreme Court, the applicants were at the rightful forum and that the application therefore succeeds, for in their view the entire process in the sale of the state bungalow was wrong and must not be emulated.

Justice Atuguba avers that, public property must be used in a judicious manner to the benefit of the nation and that public office holders must conduct themselves in a a way that not end up denying the citizens of their rights to the property.

The minority were Mr. Justice William Atuguba, Ms Sophia Akuffo and Mrs. Vida Akoto Bamfo.

However, when The Enquire contacted counsel for the applicants, Mr. Kwabla Senanu said, he would consult his clients and know the next step to take.

According to counsel, the decision of the six majorities was not the final verdict of the case and that there were still room for further argument of the issues raised by his clients.

He said, his clients sued Obestbi Lamptey in the capacity as Ghanaian s who would like to protect the public property and that they were not pursuing personal agenda and would definitely come back to the supreme Court, the highest court of the land to seek redress on the issues.

Mr. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa and Dr. Edward Omane Boamah who sued in their personal capacities are seeking an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Chairman of the Lands Commission and the Chief Registrar of Lands at the Land Title Registry from registering the title in the name of Jake Obetsebi Lamptey.

In the latter part of 2008, Messrs Okudzeto Ablakwa and Omane Boamah sued the Attorney-General, the Chairman of the Lands Commission and the Chief Registrar of Lands at the Lands Title Registry for allocating the property to Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey.

In the writ invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the applicants are praying the court to declare that by virtue of articles 20(5), 23, 257, 258, 265, 284 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution, the Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing in the previous government did not have the power to direct the sale, disposal or transfer of any government or public land to Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey or any other person or body under any circumstances whatsoever.
They were also praying the court to order that any such direction for the disposal, sale or outright transfer of the said property in dispute or any other public land to Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey was illegal and unconstitutional.

The applicants were seeking a declaration that by virtue of articles 20(5), 23, 257, 258, 265, 284 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution, the government was obliged to retain and continue to use, in the public interest, the property in dispute.

They were also seeking a further declaration that the purported sale of the said government bungalow, located at St Mungo Street, Ridge, Accra, by the previous government to Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey was in utter contravention of articles 20(5), 23, 257, 258, 265, 284 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution.

According to the applicants, the Supreme Court should order that the purported direction by the then Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing for the disposal, sale or outright transfer of the said property in dispute to Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey smacked of cronyism, was arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory and a gross abuse of the discretionary power vested in a public officer under the 1992 Constitution.

The applicants are praying the court to declare that a publication by the Chairman of the Lands Commission and the Chief Registrar of Lands which announced that the said property had been allocated to Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey was unconstitutional, void and must be struck out as such, since it was in contravention of articles 20(5), 23, 257, 258, 265, 284 and 296 of the 1992 Constitution.

Additionally, the applicants are praying for an order of perpetual injunction to restrain the Chairman of the Lands Commission and the Chief Registrar of Lands and their agents “from perfecting the registration of a parcel of land designated as Parcel No 29, Block 12, Section 019, in extent 1.04 acres more or less, as delineated on Registry Map No 003/019/1998, on which is situated Republic of Ghana Bungalow No 2, located at St Mungo Street, Ridge, Accra, in the name of Hon Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey”.

A statement of case accompanying the writ said Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey allocated onto himself the government bungalow in dispute as his duty post and resided at the said duty post at a huge cost to the state from 2001 to 2008, although he resigned from his public office some time in 2007 to pursue his presidential ambition.

It said in 2001, when Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey was the Chief of Staff at the Presidency, the head office of the Public Works Department carried out, at his behest, renovation to the tune of GH¢17,254 “through Brockwell Construction & Engineering Limited, not to mention further additional refurbishment carried out at his instance to his taste at extraordinary expense to that state”.

According to the statement of case, Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey subsequently applied to the Chairman of the Lands Commission and the Chief Registrar of Lands for a land title certificate to effectuate what it termed “the illegal and unconstitutional transaction”.

It said the Chairman of the Lands Commission and the Chief Registrar of Lands took the above steps to regularise the grant to Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey a land certificate in relation to the said property to effectuate the purported sale of the said government bungalow and plot to him.

According to the statement of case, the applicants wrote to the then Attorney-General, protesting the sale of the said bungalow, but the Attorney-General replied and pointed out that the matter was a constitutional issue.

They further argued that the then Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing did not have the power to “direct the sale, disposal or transfer of any government or public land to Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey or any person or body under such circumstances and that any such direction for the disposal, sale or outright transfer of the said property in dispute or any other public land to Mr. Obetsebi-Lamptey is illegal and unconstitutional”.