The Human Rights Division of the Accra High Court has fixed March 28, 2022, to rule on a motion for interlocutory injunction filed by Member of Parliament (MP) for Madina against Inspector General of Police (IGP) and his officers.
Lawyer Francis Xavier Sosu is praying the court to stop the IGP from any attempt to infringe on his rights.
On Monday, February 21, 2022, the court presided over by Her Ladyship Justice Barbara N. Tetteh-Charway said it will rule on the motion for injunction.
This was after the parties have filed all their processes before the court as directed.
While asking the court to enforce his rights, an order for the enforcement of his right to free movement, protest, demonstration, and personal liberty among others under Article 14(1), 21(1), and 33 of the 1992 constitution,” he is also asking for an interlocutory injunction against the IGP and his officers from attempting to arrest, investigate and malicious prosecuting him.
On December 20, Lawyer Sosu prayed the court to grant him leave to amend his motion for interlocutory injunction, due to inadvertent mistakes on the motion paper.
Clarence Kuwornu, Chief State Attorney, representing the IGP raised a preliminary objection against Lawyer Sosu’s motion for interlocutory injunction.
He said the crux of the preliminary objection is that the motion is for the enforcement of fundamental human rights but looking at the motion, it is praying that the respondent (IGP), his officers, assigns workers to be restrained from trespassing on the applicant’s land.
According to him, in as much as the applicant’s motion is for fundamental human rights, he cannot impose on the respondent (IGP) to be restrained including his assigns, workers officers from investigating and trespassing on the land of the applicant.
He argued that the IGP says the motion for interlocutory injection is incompetent since it relates to the issues of lands.
Sosu’s response
Responding to the Preliminary objection, lawyer Sosu who represented himself told the court that, the “objection is appropriate to the extent that the wording of the motion paper is incomplete and does not wholly reflect the remedies prayed in the substantive action” before the court.
He said the motion paper should have read, “motion on notice praying for an order of interlocutory injection to restrain the respondent, his assigns” from unlawfully arresting, investigating, and malicious prosecuting of applicant pending the determination of the suit
On the issue of the IGP and his men not trespassing on his land, he said it was inadvertently put in the motion because men from the respondent attempted to arrest the applicant at his church and home.
To this end, he, therefore, sought leave to amend the motion paper to reflect in the substantive matter.
This he said, will afford the respondent, the opportunity to appropriately respond.
The Chief State Attorney replying on the point of law, said he should withdraw the application for an interlocutory injunction so “we can move the substantive application.”
Source: Kasapafmonline.com/Murtala Inusah
