Jake's Bungalow Acquisition Saga - Supreme Court Dismisses Case, Wednesday, May 23, 2012 (Front)

The Supreme Court has dismissed an action by two deputy ministers that challenged the right of the National Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, to purchase a state bungalow he had occupied as a minister during the Kufuor regime.

The court, in a unanimously  on Tuesday held that the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the accusations of conflict of interest, cronyism and arbitrariness they had levelled against Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey.

Presided over by the acting Chief Justice, Mr Justice William Atuguba, the court was of the view that Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey did not acquire the said property as a minister but as a private citizen after he had resigned from public office.

In 2008, Mr Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa and Dr Edward Omane Boamah, then private citizens but now Deputy ministers of Information and Sports, respectively, brought the action against Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, who was then the Minister of Tourism and National Orientation, seeking a declaration from the court that he had no right to buy the bungalow, No 2 Mungo Street in the Ridge Residential Area, he was occupying at the time.

The plaintiffs had argued that the action of the respondent contravened articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) of the Constitution and smacked of cronyism and gross abuse of the discretionary powers of a public officer.

Other members of the court were Justice Baffoe Bonnie, Justice Owusu Ansah, Justice Sophia Akuffo, Justice S. A. Brobbey, Justice Rose Owusu, Justice Sophia Adinyira, Justice Jones Dotse and Justice Vida Akoto Bamfo.

In a ruling that lasted close to three hours, the court was of the view that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant had violated provisions in the 1992 Constitution relating to the acquisition of state lands by individuals.

According to the court, it was important that anyone who made such accusations against public officials should be able to establish the basis of such accusations.

It, however, noted that the verdict was not in support of the practice whereby public office holders, through cronyism, arbitrariness and other means, exploited their positions for personal gain.

It said the use to which the Lands Commission had directed Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey to put the land would be of benefit to society more than when it was for the use of a single public official, adding that it was consistent with the Accra Redevelopment Scheme started by the Rawlings regime.

The court held that the Lands Commission, an autonomous body which acted on behalf of the President in whom public lands were vested, acted in conformity with the Lands Commission Act in the use of its discretionary powers.

It was of the view that in the absence of any evidence pointing to the contrary, it was not right for the court to direct the Lands Commission as to what to do, adding that care should be taken not to use the Constitution to subvert the powers of institutions and technocrats in their work.

The ruling also attacked the evidence presented by the Attorney-General, who was a party to the case, which purported to say that the transaction had not received Cabinet approval.

Pointing out a number of irregularities in the document presented by the Attorney-General, the court observed that the document, which was said to be Cabinet minutes, did not bear a letterhead, nor was it certified. Therefore, it could not be said to be genuine.

Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey sat pensively through the proceedings, showing no emotions, but after walking out of the court, he could not help but smile to a wave of his wife’s white scarf in celebration.

Mr Ablakwa and Dr Boamah, who were also in court, were occasionally seen conferring with each other throughout the ruling.

The Supreme Court had, in November last year, overruled a preliminary objection raised by Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey that it had no mandate to hear the case brought before it by the plaintiffs in respect of his right to purchase a government bungalow.

The nine-member court, in a unanimous decision, had ruled that although the case passed for a land case, which falls within the domain of the High Court, the plaintiffs were not laying claim to the property in question but rather seeking an interpretation of several provisions of the Constitution regarding the ownership of state property, including articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) of the 1992 Constitution.