NIA boss Ken Attafuah, others cited for contempt over Ghana Card registration

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

The executive secretary of the National Identification Authority (NIA) Dr Ken Attafuah and three others have been cited for contempt of court over their roles in the Ghana Card registration.

The NIA is still registering people in the Eastern Region despite being served with an interlocutory injunction restraining them from doing so.

The other three officials who have also being cited for contempt are Mr. William Kofi Baffoe-Mensah, the Head of Administration; Col. Peter Kwame Ghansah, the Head of Operations and Alhaji Salifu Abdulai, the Head of Operations of the Southern Zone of NIA.

The contempt suit follows an original one filed by two citizens Mr. Kevor Mark-Oliver and Mr. Emmanuel Akumatey Okrah. They sued the (NIA) over its decision to commerce the mass registration exercise of the Ghana card in the Eastern Region of Ghana despite the president’s directive to suspend public gatherings amid the deadly Covid 19 spread.

Below are details of the contempt suit:

That the Applicants on 19th March, 2020 caused an originating motion to be issued against the National Identification Authority (NIA) Suit No. HR/0061/20 for the reliefs endorsed therein. (Attached and Exhibited as A is a copy of the Originating motion)

11.That the Applicants caused an interlocutory injunction to be issued against the National Identification Authority to restrain the NIA from continuing with registration and issuance of the Ghana card in the Eastern Region by virtue of the corona outbreak in Ghana. (Attached and Exhibited as B is a copy of the interlocutory injunction).

12.That the NIA was served with both the originating motion and interlocutory injunction on 19th March, 2020.

13.That after the NIA was served with the originating motion and interlocutory injunction, the NIA issued a statement claiming that the NIA would not suspend the mass registration and issuance of the Ghana card. (Attached and Exhibited as C is a copy of the said statement).

14.That on Friday, 20th March, 2020 the NIA still went ahead to register and issue the Ghana card to people in the Eastern Region.

15.That I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that the Courts have held that the performance or exercise of a statutory duty or administrative function is no defence to committal for contempt if the said action interferes with justice delivery or the administration of justice by the Court.

16.That the registration and issuance of the Ghana card in the Eastern Region after the NIA had been served with the said Originating motion and interlocutory injunction is a clear disrespect to the Court process.

17.That I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that the test for determining whether an action amounts to contempt is whether the act complained of interfered or tended to interfere with the due administration of justice.

18.That I am further advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that it is not the actual obstruction resulting from an act, but the character of the act and its direct tendency to prevent and obstruct the discharge of judicial duty.

19.That the action of the NIA by continuing to register and issue the originating motion will render the judgment of the Court a nugatory since the registration would have been completed by the time the Court gives its judgment.

20.That I am advised by my Counsel and verily believe same to be true that contempt of Court is a two-legged principle.

21.That I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that one aspect of contempt is when a person goes contrary to an order of a competent Court of jurisdiction.

22.That I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that the other aspect of contempt for which a person can be committed is when one’s action is prejudicial to the outcome of a case before a competent Court of jurisdiction.

23.That the second leg of contempt implies that the Respondents are not acting contrary to a Court order but their action is such that it is prejudicial to the outcome of the case and may interfere in the justice delivery mandate of the Court before whom is the substantive case.

24.That in the circumstances, the Respondents did not violate any order of this Honourable Court but rather the action of the NIA in continuing with the registration and issuance of the Ghana card is prejudicial to the outcome of this case and also interferes in the justice delivery system of this Court.

25.That the act of the Respondents in continuing with registration and issuance of the Ghana card after the NIA had been served with the originating motion and interlocutory injunction is a direct interference in the justice delivery system of this Honourable Court and prejudicial to the outcome of this case hence the action of the Respondent is contemptuous of this Court.

26.That the Respondents have disrespected this Honourable Court since the continuous registration and issuance of the Ghana card has a tendency of jeopardizing the outcome of the case with Suit No. HR/0061/20.

27.That I am advised by my Counsel and verily believe same to be true that when a matter is before a Court, the parties must wait for the final verdict of the Court before they take any action in respect of the said matter.

28.That I am advised by my Counsel and verily believe same to be true that where a party to a suit before a Court takes an action which may jeopardize the outcome of the Court, such an action amounts to contempt of the Court.

29.That I am advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that where a case has been filed, any action, omission or conduct that is likely to prejudice the fair trial of the case or interfere with the due administration of justice will be tantamount to contempt of Court.

30.That I am further advised by my Counsel and verily believe same to be true that the Respondents’ continuous registration and issuance of the Ghana card in the Eastern Region in times of the corona virus outbreak is a clear action that is likely to prejudice this case before this Honourable Court.

31.That I am advised by my Counsel and verily believe same to be true that the continuous registration and issuance of the Ghana card in the Eastern Region by the Respondents herein after the NIA had been served with the originating motion and interlocutory injunction application is contemptuous of this Honourable Court and hence the Respondents should be convicted of the said offence.

32.That in the circumstances, I pray that this obvious disregard to the Court amounts to nothing more than contempt of which the Respondents ought to be convicted.

Source: Daily Mail GH