Persistent objections by lawyers of five persons accused of receiving bribes in the Mabey & Johnson case have forced CHRAJ to defer its ruling on earlier challenges to its jurisdiction to investigate the allegations.
The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) was due to rule on whether there was merit in arguments by the same lawyers challenging its jurisdiction to investigate the allegations Monday but the ruling was objected to again by the lawyers.
They argued that in respect of a prohibition order they filed at the Supreme Court seeking to stop the Commissioner, Emile Short, from presiding over the hearing because of prejudicial comments on television, ruling on their earlier objections should be suspended pending the decision of the Supreme Court.
According to them, once they were seeking to prohibit Commissioner Short from presiding over the sitting, ruling on their earlier objections will amount to determining part of the case.
But the 1992 Constitution states expressly that the Commission shall not investigate a matter which is pending before a tribunal or a court for that matter.
After conferring, the three commissioners adjourned sitting to April 7, when they will give their ruling on whether they could give a verdict on the earlier challenges to the Commission's jurisdiction to investigate the matter.
The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) was due to rule on whether there was merit in arguments by the same lawyers challenging its jurisdiction to investigate the allegations Monday but the ruling was objected to again by the lawyers.
They argued that in respect of a prohibition order they filed at the Supreme Court seeking to stop the Commissioner, Emile Short, from presiding over the hearing because of prejudicial comments on television, ruling on their earlier objections should be suspended pending the decision of the Supreme Court.
According to them, once they were seeking to prohibit Commissioner Short from presiding over the sitting, ruling on their earlier objections will amount to determining part of the case.
But the 1992 Constitution states expressly that the Commission shall not investigate a matter which is pending before a tribunal or a court for that matter.
After conferring, the three commissioners adjourned sitting to April 7, when they will give their ruling on whether they could give a verdict on the earlier challenges to the Commission's jurisdiction to investigate the matter.
Comments
Post a Comment