Statement of Facts: The National Liberation Council appointed by an executive instrument, a commission of inquiry to inquire into the management and other matters relating to the State Fishing Corporation. The terms of reference of the commission were set out in the Commission of Enquiry (State Fishing Corporation) Instrument, 1967 (E.I 6). During the sittings of the commission, the assistant marketing officer of the corporation made an allegation of a very serious nature against Mr V. O. Bannerman, the applicant. It was alleged that Mr Bannerman and one Mr Quaye stole 1,100 cartons of fish from the cold store of the Corporation. Mr Bannerman was not invited by the Commission to state his side of the allegations levelled against him. Consequently, by a letter signed by the chairman of the commission Mr Bannerman was purported to have been suspended. A copy of the letter was sent to the Secretary of the National Liberation Council and others. The NLC subsequently wrote a letter purporting to suspend the applicant and three other officers of the corporation. Mr Bannerman therefore initiated the present action at the High Court for writs of certiorari to quash the decision of the commission to suspend him. And he prayed the Court for prohibition to prevent the chairman of the commission from suspending, dismissing, interdicting or in any such manner interfering with his performance of duties as distribution marketing manager of the State Fishing Corporation. The applicant contended that the Commission of Enquiry (State Fishing Corporation) nor its chairman did not have jurisdiction to suspend, dismiss, interdict or interfere with his service contract. He further contended that the commission breached the rules of natural justice in that he was not summoned to appear before it to justify his continued employment by the corporation. Although the chief state attorney, counsel for the respondent quite frankly conceded the grounds for the reliefs sought, he contended that the letter signed by the chairman was not a speaking order since it did not contain any reason for the suspension. He further argued that the letter was meaningless, valueless and of no effect: since it was not written on the basis of the proceedings of the commission. He therefore referred the Court to the letter that was rather written by the NLC. Issues: Whether or not the Commission of Enquiry (State Fishing Corporation) or its chairman was conferred with jurisdiction to suspend the applicant? Whether or not the rule of natural justice was breached? Whether or not the NLC had power to suspend the applicant? Holding: The Commission of Enquiry (State Fishing Corporation) or its chairman was not conferred with jurisdiction to suspend the applicant. The rule of natural justice- audi alteram partem- was breached. The NLC lacked the power to suspend the applicant. Reasoning: The proposition that the commission or its chairman did something of an administrative nature was hard to be accepted by the Court. There was no doubt that the commission had been exercising judicial functions. The administrative duties of the commission or its chairman were stated in Section 6 of the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1964 (Act 250). They included enforcement of attendance of witnesses, production of documents and taking of evidence on commission or by request. The Court found it difficult to see how the chairman, in writing the suspension letter could be said to be acting administratively when his administrative functions did not include suspension of persons that worked in the corporation. The Court therefore took the view that the only motivation for the writing of the suspension letter was the allegation made against the applicant. As a matter of fact the commission or its chairman in suspending the applicant acted in excess of their jurisdiction having regard to the terms of reference in E.I 6. The purported decision to suspend the applicant was ultra vires the commission or its chairman. If even the chairman was acting administratively in suspending the applicant, it was incumbent upon him to adhere to the content of natural justice expounded by Lord Selborne in Spackman v. Plumstead District Board of Works.[2] The trial Judge quoted Lord Selborne to the extent that “…He is not a judge in the proper sense of the word; but he must give the parties an opportunity of being heard before him and stating their case and their view…There would be no decision within the meaning of the statute if there were anything of that sort done contrary to the essence of justice. Further, the Court asserted that the principle of natural justice is usually referred to as audi alterem partem rule and that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence. In Wood v. Woad,[3] the audi alteram partem rule was explained as “..not confined to the conduct of strictly legal tribunals but is applicable to every tribunal or body of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences to individuals”. Therefore, since the activities of the commission involved judicial function and there was non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, certiorari can issue to quash the decision contained in the suspension letter. Although the State Fishing Corporation Instrument, 1965 (L.I. 397) gave the NLC power to suspend, transfer or dismiss any of the employees of the corporation; the condition precedent was for the NLC to assume control and management of the corporation. Once there was no evidence to show that the NLC assumed such control, its letter to affirm the suspension of the applicant is ultra vires the NLC which acted in excess of its power. Conclusion: The commission of Enquiry (State Fishing Corporation) and its chairman acted ultra vires and therefore the suspension letter is quashed. The Commission or its chairman is prohibited from suspending, dismissing, interdicting or any way interfering with the applicant in the performance of his duties. The NLC acted ultra vires its powers. [1] Republic v. State Fishing Corporation Commission of Enquiry (Chairman); Ex Parte Bannerman
