REPUBLIC vs. JANTUAH AND OTHERS [1968] GLR 174

CASES REFERRED TO

(1) Katikiro of Buganda v. Attorney-General [1961] 1 W.L.R.119; [1960] 3 All E.R. 849; 105 S.J. 85, P.C.

(2) Assam Railways & Trading Co., Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1935] A.C. 445; [1934] All E.R. Rep. 646; 103 L.J.K.B. 583; 152 L.T. 26; 50 T.L.R. 540; 18 T.C. 509, H.L.

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS

RULING on the admissibility of a Government White Paper on the findings of the Ollennu Commission of Enquiry report.

COUNSEL

S. M. Boison, Chief State Attorney, for the Republic.

K. Narayan for the fourth accused.

JUDGMENT OF EDUSEI J.

Mr. Narayan, counsel for the fourth accused, is seeking to tender in evidence the White Paper on the Report of the Ollennu Commission and the chief state attorney Mr. Boison has objected to its being tendered.

The chief state attorney argued that the report of the Ollennu Commission (exhibit A) should be regarded as having been incorporated into the Corrupt Practices (Prevention) Act, 1964 (Act 230), and therefore the rules relating to the construction of enactments should be the guiding principles in determining the admissibility or non-admissibility of the White Paper. He contended that it is the duty of the court to interpret the statute and that reference should not be made to any interpretation given to it by the executive authority of the State. Counsel referred me to the cases of Katikiro of Buganda v. Attorney-General [1961] 1 W.L.R. 119, P.C. where a White Paper was rejected on the ground that it could not be used as an aid to the construction of the Constitution of the Buganda Administration. He also referred me to the case of Assam Railways & Trading Co., Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1935] A.C. 445, H.L.

Mr. Narayan on the other hand conceded the arguments of the learned chief state attorney but canvassed the point that he sought to tender the White Paper to show whether or not the National Liberation Council, the executive authority of the State, agreed with the commission’s findings of facts therein stated. He also put forward the contention that the White Paper being a public document was admissible as to the facts stated therein.

With respect to both learned counsel I reject their submissions: The Ollennu Report cannot be incorporated into Act 230 and I do not see by what rule of law that this can be done except Act 230 itself expressly states so. There is no such express provision in the

[p.176] of [1968] GLR 174

said Act and this court cannot say that there is an implied power to incorporate it. The Act is only the source of power which enables the executive to appoint a commission of inquiry in certain circumstances and the various matters to be done when a report of the commission is submitted to the appointing authority and to the Attorney-General.

I cannot also accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the fourth accused because what the White Paper has done was to state certain statements of facts which in the opinion of the executive the report (exhibit A) has made. In effect the executive, i.e. the National Liberation Council, were construing the report as they understood it.

The question of interpretation of documents (and this expression in my opinion includes exhibit A) is solely a matter for this court. The court will itself construe exhibit A and by so doing get at the findings of facts therein stated. The findings of facts as found by the National Liberation Council have nothing to do with the court whose sole duty is to interpret the document and find out the facts itself. I do not think in these circumstances the court needs any outside aid to construe exhibit A which is free from ambiguity. In short the White Paper is irrelevant to the matter before the court in so far as it is sought to show certain findings of facts gleaned from exhibit A by the executive.

I know that in certain circumstances the White Paper can properly be admitted in evidence, e.g. if the fact of the publication of exhibit A itself is in issue or relevant to a fact in issue, in such a case its admissibility is not in doubt.

For the above reasons, I reject the White Paper in evidence; and it is marked rejected D. 1.

DECISION

Submissions of both counsel overruled.

S. K. T.