{"id":397373,"date":"2018-02-02T06:55:48","date_gmt":"2018-02-02T06:55:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/citifmonline.com\/?p=397373"},"modified":"2018-02-02T14:01:56","modified_gmt":"2018-02-02T14:01:56","slug":"chraj-exceeded-its-limit-in-2-25b-bond-investigation-lawyer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citifmonline.com\/2018\/02\/chraj-exceeded-its-limit-in-2-25b-bond-investigation-lawyer\/","title":{"rendered":"CHRAJ exceeded its limit in $2.25b bond investigation \u2013 Lawyer"},"content":{"rendered":"
A private legal practitioner, Yaw Oppong, has opined that the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice [CHRAJ], went beyond its remit during the investigation of the controversial $2.25 billion bond issued by the Finance Ministry.<\/p>\n
Speaking on Eyewitness News<\/strong> on Thursday, Yaw Oppong said the right institution to have investigated the matter is the Securities and Exchange Commission.<\/p>\n \u201cThe substantial issue confirms that the CHRAJ\u2019s investigation did not grant the reliefs that complainants brought before it against the Minister, but if you read it carefully and from information that is in the public domain, CHRAJ for instance went into matters that it does not have jurisdiction to investigate or matters that exclusive jurisdiction or authority has been given to other statutory institutions.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFor example, on the issues relating to the bond, such matters as far as I know, has been exclusively granted the Securities and Exchange Commission. For example, they have a committee that is mandated to do so in the name of the commission,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n He referenced a case involving HFC where an issue was supposed to be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission but ended up at the High Court.<\/p>\n \u201cThey [HFC] went to the high court and that court received the application but didn\u2019t have jurisdiction. When it went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court clearly said when it comes to matters relating to securities, the Securities and Exchange Commission is the first place of call to investigate that. Until they [Securities and Exchange Commission] have shown open bias or not been able to exhibit independence, then you can come to the court. So the Supreme Court struck out that application,\u201d the private legal practitioner added.<\/p>\n He also added that, CHRAJ went beyond its jurisdiction to further investigate the Finance Minister\u2019s assets saying that \u201cI understand that, that matter was not part of the issues it was investigating.\u201d<\/p>\n Background <\/strong><\/p>\n The controversy over the bond begun after the\u00a0Minority called for a\u00a0full-scale parliamentary probe<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0into how persons they referred to as very close friends of the Finance Minister, purchased 95 percent of the $2.25 billion bond issue in April 2017.<\/p>\n The NDC’s Ashanti Regional Youth Organizer, Yaw Brongya Genfi, subsequently petitioned CHRAJ to investigate the bond on grounds that Mr. Ofori Atta attempted to promote a personal interest for himself, as well as family and friends,.<\/p>\n