REPUBLIC vs. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE JUSTICE; EXPARTE RICHARD ANANE

The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) initiated investigations against Dr Richard Anane, then Minister for Roads and Transport, based on newspaper allegations of corruption, conflict of interest and abuse of power. CHRAJ expressly stated that no formal complainant had lodged a complaint and that it was conducting its own investigations under its constitutional and statutory mandate. After a panel hearing, CHRAJ found no corruption, but found conflict of interest, abuse of power, and additionally found that Dr Anane had committed perjury before Parliament, and made recommendations including that he be relieved of his ministerial post and apologise to Parliament and the public. Dr Anane then applied to the High Court for judicial review, contending that CHRAJ lacked jurisdiction because no formal complaint from an identifiable complainant had been lodged, and that the perjury finding was made without jurisdiction and in breach of natural justice. Portion in judgment pointing to this: “On 20 May 2005, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice CHRAJ... wrote a letter to Dr Richard Anane... The letter... catalogued a number of allegations of corruption and conflict of interest made in some newspapers and intimated its intention to investigate these media reports and allegations...” Also: “The Commission wishes to inform you that Mr Raymond Archer is not a complainant before the Commission... The Commission is conducting its own investigations into this matter...” And further: “The Commission accordingly finds that the Hon Minister misconducted himself by committing perjury when he appeared before Parliament.”