BNI And Asabee Case Before Judicial Committee ADR
The case in which Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, a former Minister of State and his family had dragged the Director of Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) and two other officials of the bureau to court, is now before the Judiciary Committee’s Alternative Dispute Resolution for settlement. Nene Amegatcher, Counsel for Mr Asamoah-Boateng, told the Human Rights Court on Wednesday that they had not received the feedback of the meeting hence could not inform the court of latest development. He said the State only received a letter from the Committee (ADR) on Wednesday morning, and therefore prayed the court for an adjournment to enable the parties involved communicate whether or not the matter had been resolved. Later in an interview, Nene Amegatcher said the parties had meet “on two or three occasions before the committee presided over Mr Justice Samuel Marful-Sau.” “We hope that the issue would be resolved. There is no dispute that cannot be resolved. In the United States 85 per cent of cases go through ADR and most difficult cases are put before the court,” he added. Following Nene Amegatcher’s submissions, the court presided over by Mr Justice U.P. Dery adjourned the matter to March 2. Ms Helen Kwawukume, Chief State Attorney, represented Mr Yaw Donkor, Director of BNI, Mr Stephen Brokwa and Ms Josephine Gandawiri all of BNI. Asamoah-Boateng, his wife, Zuleika Jennifer Lorwiah, Nana Yaw Asamoah-Boateng and Andrew Asamoah-Boateng their children have instituted contempt action against the three respondents, Yaw Donkor, Josephine Gandawiri, Stephen Abrokwa, and the Attorney General’s Department for preventing them from travelling outside the country on two occasions without recourse to a court order. The contempt action was instituted when the four applicants were prevented from travelling outside the country on June 14, 2009 without any court order or warrant. They therefore filed an application seeking an injunction to restrain the BNI from preventing them from travelling without a court order. While the application was pending, they claimed the BNI again disregarded the action and prevented them from travelling again at a later date. The matter had been embroiled in some confusion when, on August 18, 2009, there was controversy over direct proof of service of the contempt summons on the Director of BNI and the two other officials. While court records and applicants’ lawyer indicated that the three respondents had been served with the contempt summons, the A-G’s Department said otherwise. Similarly, the records of proof of service of the court and that of applicants’ lawyer did not tally, as the two records indicated names of different bailiffs, with different dates of serving the contemnors.