Gad Vrs Minerals Commission And Another (C13/02/2024) [2023] GHAHC 636 (22 November 2023)

P a g e | 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (COURT 1) HO HELD ON WEDNESDAY 22 NOVEMBER 2023 BEFORE JUSTICE JOHN EKOW MENSAH, J. C13/02/2024 SUIT NO. IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 33 OF THE 1992 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA AND ORDER 67 OF THE HIGH COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES, 2004 (C. I. 47) AND THE INHERENT JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT BETWEEN LAMBERT GAD AND MINERALS COMMISSION ATTORNEY GENERAL : : : APPLICANT RESPONDENT ON NOTICE RULING In an attempt by the Respondent’s Counsel to play the audio that constitute Respondents Exhibit IM13, Applicant’s Counsel raises objection to admitting the said Exhibit IM13 into evidence on the grounds of being a secretly recorded conversation. 1 | P a g e P a g e | 2 To support the grounds for his objection, Applicant’s Counsel refers to the cases of Raphael Cubagee v. Asare [2016-2017] 1 GLR 243 SC, Ackah v. ADB [2016-2017] 1 GLR 552 SC and submits that the Court does not accept materials such as Exhibit IM13. Counsel says the only exception is when it concerns the security of the Republic. Applicant’s Counsel further submit that the instant case does not concern the security of the State and therefore is disqualified from being admitted into evidence. In response, the Attorney General submits that the Court admits documents into evidence when they are relevant to the issues raised in the suit. Distinguishing between the Raphael Cubagee case from the instant case, the Attorney General emphasized that while the Raphael Cubagee case relates to telephone conversation between two (2) private persons, who are entitled to their privacies, the instant case involves the State with Public Institution performing a public function. Attorney General further submits that the said Exhibit IM13 is a recording of public event for public records and that it is a recording of a meeting involving several persons including the Applicant upon an invitation by the Minerals Commission. Attorney General argues that the subject of dispute is whether the Applicant was heard, and Exhibit IM13 provides relevant evidence to assist the Court to determine just that. Summing up his submissions, Attorney General referred to section 52 of the Evidence Act and submits that Exhibit IM13 is nothing more than minutes of a meeting and that considering Exhibit IM13 will not amount to any undue delay. 2 | P a g e Replying on points of law, Applicant’s Counsel, in denying that what took place was a public function, insists that public meetings go with minutes. P a g e | 3 BY COURT: It is clear that the respective submissions made by Counsel call for the examination of Exhibit IM13 to determine its relevancy to the issues in the suit. That is why the Court will order that Exhibit IM13 be played out for all parties and the Court on the next adjourned date. The objection is overruled. John Ekow Mensah, J. Justice of the High Court (Court 1) Ho Lawyers 2 Emile Atsu Agbakpe, Esq. for the Applicant. Anthony Ghattie (Asst. State Attorney) being led by Freda Sitsofe Ameke (State Attorney) for the Republic/Respondent. 3 | P a g e