The Supreme Court of Appeal has thrown out an application by the Attorney-General to restrain HRDC from holding an further anti-Justice Jane Ansah demonstrations in the country.
Here’s part of the ruling on the matter:
“So on the facts before us and as the law stands should the Attorney General’s application be granted? There are two sides to it. First is the application filed on September 16th in respect of the demonstrations of September 18th to 20th. The application is now superfluous. So are any concerns the Respondents had about the affidavit of Deputy Commissioner Chaima. They are an irrelevance in view of the superfluity referred to above.
Then there is the injunction pending appeal or pending the resolution of the criminality/violence surrounding the demonstrations. We will also not grant them. Not because there has not been violence or criminality. Not because there is no possibility of criminality or violence. But because there are in so far as the applications are premised on possible violence and criminality better ways of dealing with the violence and criminality. For instance and about the police’s alleged lack of resources the solution is not to stop demonstrations. It is to resource the police adequately. Otherwise we would be allowing them to benefit from their own inefficiencies. But more than that we think the Inspector General could have done more to prove a lack of resources. It is not enough in our view to just stand up and claim a lack of resources. We think anybody can do that.
Even more than the Inspector General should have gone on to show that such want of resources was through no fault of the police service and that they up to this point done all they could to retrieve the situation to no avail.
It also seems to us that the Applicants did not make much use, if at all, of section 98 of the Police Act. The issues being raised here could have been raised before District Commissioners or anyone acting on their behalf. They could have granted the same reliefs that are being sought from us. In case of not having been satisfied with the reliefs granted or not granted resort could have been had to the High Court on appeal and eventually to this Court. The fact that the Inspector General does not make reference to any meetings or discussions under section 98 means that there were never any such interactions.
Lastly we feel obliged to comment on the question whether the respondents should have organized demonstrations from 18th to 23rd September 2019? Before the parties reported to us on the discussion held after our ruling of August 27th. We will not sit here and interpret our ruling. All we can say is that whether or not it was proper to hold demonstrations before reporting to us is a matter best left to the individual consciences of the parties.”