Try asking the following...
Try asking the following...
February 20, 2007
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
RULING
DR. DATE-BAH JSC. This is the unanimous ruling of the court. The applicant has sought to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court pursuant to article 132 of the 1992 Constitution for an order of prohibition, prohibiting Mr Justice Simon Suurbare of the High Court, Tamale from hearing a motion filed by the respondent in this case seeking the applicant’s committal for contempt. The applicant’s grounds set out in his motion paper are:
“(i) Friendship or unholy friendship with the principal of the respondent Abukari Chandiba and his lawyer.
(ii) Animosity or hostility towards the applicant.
(iii) Bias because of the attitude towards the applicant.”
The applicant supported his motion with affidavit evidence and the respondent in turn countered that evidence with his own affidavit evidence. Counsel for the respondent, who was accused by the applicant of having conspired with Justice Suubare, also swore to an affidavit which was put in evidence before us.
While undoubtedly, real likelihood of bias in a judge is ground for granting an order of prohibition against him, such likelihood has to be established on the basis of facts duly proved. In our view, the affidavit evidence adduced by the applicant in this case woefully failed to prove the facts relied on to establish the allegations of hostility against the applicant and personal friendship between the judge and counsel for the respondent which were made against the learned High Court Judge.
The evidence sought to be relied on was circumstantial. We do not consider it necessary to set out the said circumstantial evidence in full. Suffice it to say that it was based on the previous ruling of the judge in an application for contempt of an order of a district court and on alleged early morning meeting between counsel for the respondent and the learned High Court Judge; and finally on an alleged telephone conversation between the High Court Judge and counsel for the respondent. In our view, it was not of sufficient weight to establish proof on the balance of probabilities that the judge was a friend of the respondent’s counsel and that he was hostile towards the applicant. The allegation made that one Abukari Chandiba was also a friend of the judge we did not find relevant to the issue of controversy.
Accordingly, we would summarily dismiss the application to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this court to prohibit Mr Justice Suurbare from hearing the contempt proceedings that the applic
AI Generated Summary
Dr. S. K. Date-Bah JSC, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court panel, rejected an application invoking the Courts supervisory jurisdiction under article 132 of the 1992 Constitution to prohibit Mr Justice Simon Suurbare of the High Court, Tamale, from hearing a contempt motion against the applicant. The applicant alleged unholy friendship between Justice Suurbare and the respondents counsel and principal, Abukari Chandiba, along with hostility and bias. Both sides filed affidavits, including one by the respondents counsel. The Court held that, although real likelihood of bias can justify prohibition, it must be proven by duly established facts. The applicants circumstantial assertionsa prior contempt ruling by the judge, an alleged early morning meeting, and an alleged telephone conversationwere not weighty enough to prove bias on the balance of probabilities. The allegation connecting the judge with Abukari Chandiba was found irrelevant. The Court therefore summarily dismissed the application, concluding the applicant had not proven his case.