THE REPUBLIC v. SOCIAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INSURANCE TRUST & ORS, EX PARTE: ERNEST THOMPSON

TORKORNOO (MRS.) JSC:-

Background to the case

Article 141 of the 1992 Constitution reads:

Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court

141 The High Court shall have supervisory jurisdiction over all lower courts and any lower adjudicating authority; and may, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, issue orders and directions for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement of its supervisory powers.

Rule 55 (1) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules CI 47 also provides:

Order 55 – Application for Judicial Review

Cases appropriate for application for judicial review

1.An application for

a)an order in the nature of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari or quo warranto; or

b)an injunction restraining a person from acting in any public office in which the person is not entitled to act; or

c)any other injunction,

shall be made by way of an application for judicial review to the High Court.

Pursuant to the two provisions set out above, the Interested Party/Appellant/Appellant (referred to hereafter as Appellant) applied to the High Court to quash by an order of Certiorari two documents issued by the 1stRespondent Trust.

According to the case of the appellant, the 1st Respondent had entered into contract with two businesses to provide an integrated electric resource for the operations of the business of the 1st Respondent between November 2012 and 2016. It was called the Operational Business Suite (OBS).

The Appellant was appointed as the Director General of the 1st Respondent Trust in May 2013, some months after the contract was signed. In February 2017, his employment as the director general of the 1st Respondent was terminated. He was therefore the chief executive of the 1st Respondent during the period of operationalization of the OBS.

According to appellant, he was invited by the Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO) to assist with investigations into the implementation of the OBS. He received a letter from EOCO (attached as exhibit ET1 to the affidavit in support of the application) titled SPECIAL AUDIT REPORT ON OPERATIONAL BUSINESS SUITE (OBS) PROJECT FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 2012. Exhibit ET1 was short and stated:

‘We write to you to obtain your comments on the following observations of the above mentioned subject matter’.

The subject matter for his comments was attached as Exhibit ET2. Appellant provided his responses to the material contained in exhibit ET2 which was tendered and attached to his application as exhibit ET3.

App