Pendency of a matter before court does not preclude GLC DC from hearing: SC throws out Kwasi Afrifa

The Supreme Court has ruled that the pendency of a matter before the court does not stop or prevent the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council (GLC) from hearing the same.

According to the apex court, the Disciplinary Committee is not barred by processes and statutes from continuing its work in such a manner despite the pendency of a suit.

This ruling was given by a 5-member panel of the Supreme Court presided over by Justice Prof. Nii Ashie Kotey on Tuesday, June 5, 2022, on a motion filed by a private legal practitioner, Kwasi Afrifa against Justice Nene Amegatcher and 2 others who are members of the GLC Disciplinary Committee.

The applicant per the motion wanted the respondents' DC members convicted for contempt of court for continuing to sit on an alleged bribery allegation matter involving him despite the pendency of his substantive suit before the Supreme Court per the case of Republic v Bank of Ghana. EX PARTE: Duffuor.

He noted that his suit before the apex court is challenging the Legislative Instrument(L.I.) that establishes the Disciplinary Committee, which also is the creator of the Disciplinary Committee thus it was legally apt per the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the pendency of suits for the Committee to stop sitting.

“The L.I. which is a matter for the Supreme Court’s determination is the same basis for which the Disciplinary Committee is sitting.”

“The Supreme Court has made pronouncements on the pendency of suits before it.”

Moreover, in response to a question posed by a member of the panel, Kwasi Afrifa asserted that; “Even in the absence of an injunction, an action which is subversive should not continue.”

On their part, the respondents represented by counsel, Nana Yaw Ntrakwah, in his submission, referring to The Republic v High Court(Fast Track Division) EX PARTE: National Lotteries Authority, Ghana Lotto Operators Association, and Ors noted that it is a communis opinio of the Bar that the courts are subservient to the Legislature.

He added that per Article 11(2) of the 1992 Constitution, the Common Law is the court’s own law and that statutes proscribe what should be done, and that his side will rule on the position of the statute which is not so.

Ruling

The Supreme Court noted that per its consideration of the processes and the relevant statutes, the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council is not precluded from continuing with the matter before the court and thus the respondents are not acting in contempt and thereby dismissed the motion accordingly.

“We have carefully considered the processes and the relevant statutes and that the General Legal Council Disciplinary Committee is not precluded from continuing with the matter before the court. The respondents are not acting in contempt of court. The application, therefore, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.”

Background

Legal practitioner, Kwasi Afrifa was dragged to the General Legal Council by his clients, Ogyeedom Obranu Kwesi Atta VI of Gomoa Afransi, in the Central Region.

This petition, according to the traditional leader was necessitated by his failed attempts to retrieve an amount of $75,000, being part of a $100,000 sum he had allegedly given to Afrifa who had requested it to enable him to procure a favorable verdict from the Supreme Court in a matter against Ghana Telecommunications.

In response to the petition, Lawyer Afrifa noted that Ogyeedom Kwesi Atta had claimed to have met the Chief Justice, Kwasi Anin-Yeboah, who had demanded a $5 million bribe to help him win the case.

Subsequently, the Chief Justice through the Judicial Secretary denied the allegation and petitioned the Disciplinary Committee of the GLC to investigate the matter and reported the same to the Police CID for criminal investigation.

Per its investigation, the General Legal Council made a prima facie case against Kwasi Afrifa and leveled nine charges of professional misconduct.

The legal practitioner has since been fighting the General Legal Council in court seeking to quash the charges against him and also the Legislative backing of the Disciplinary Committee of the General Legal Council.

Additionally, he also contends that the GLC had no jurisdiction to institute disciplinary proceedings against him because there was no complainant in his case.

In February this year, his Certiorari application was denied by the Supreme Court presided over by Pwamang JSC.