The Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) has acknowledged receipt of a petition calling for an investigation into alleged conflict of interest and abuse of office in relation to the reported takeover of the Damang Mine.
In a letter dated Monday, 25 May 2026, the Principal Registrar of the Commission, Mr. Daniel Anang Afetsi, confirmed receipt of the complaint and stated that CHRAJ would “revert in due course.”
The response appears to reflect an alignment with recent judicial guidance on the manner in which constitutional complaints are to be received and processed by the Commission.
The Law on CHRAJ’s Procedural Discretion
The procedural posture of CHRAJ in handling such petitions has recently been clarified by the High Court in Republic v. Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice; Ex Parte Wilberforce Asare [TLP-HC-2026-14].
In that case, the Applicant sought an order of mandamus compelling CHRAJ to investigate a complaint, arguing that the Commission’s failure to acknowledge receipt amounted to neglect of a public duty.
The Court, however, found that CHRAJ had already acted within its statutory framework under section 14(1) of the CHRAJ Act, 1993 (Act 456), by writing to the person complained against and seeking comments. That step, the Court held, marked the commencement of CHRAJ’s preliminary evaluative process.
At that point, the Court drew a firm line. Mandamus will not lie where a public authority is already acting within its lawful discretion. CHRAJ, the Court held, cannot be compelled to “investigate” in the abstract where it has already begun lawful preliminary steps.
The application was therefore dismissed on the basis that there was no refusal, neglect, or failure of duty capable of enforcement by mandamus.
However, the Court also introduced an important safeguard. It emphasised that administrative fairness requires communication, noting that a complainant should not be left in uncertainty once a complaint has been set in motion. On that basis, CHRAJ was directed to provide updates on the steps taken and the progress of the matter.
Background
The petition was filed on 20 May 2026 by Emmanuel Senyo Amekplenu, a member of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) communications team. It invokes Articles 218 and 284 of the 1992 Constitution, together with the CHRAJ Act, 1993 (Act 456).
It raises questions as to whether proper declarations of interest were made, whether recusal protocols were observed, and whether public office may have been used to secure advantage in the reported transaction involving businessman Ibrahim Mahama.
It further references claims concerning the use of a private aircraft linked to Mr. Ibrahim Mahama for official presidential travel, as well as alleged medical evacuation arrangements involving the Vice President. These issues are presented as part of a broader concern about the intersection between private resources and public functions.
The petition concludes with the following prayers:
a. to commence a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding the approval and takeover process of the Damang Mine;
b. to obtain and review relevant Cabinet memoranda, minutes, declarations of interest, recusal records, and related correspondence;
c. to investigate whether any public officials used their positions to secure preferential treatment, advantage, or regulatory benefit for Mr. Ibrahim Mahama or related interests;
d. to examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged use of a private jet linked to Mr. Ibrahim Mahama for presidential and official travel, including whether any reciprocal arrangements or public benefits are involved;
e. to determine whether there was a violation of constitutional or ethical standards; and
f. to recommend appropriate sanctions or remedial measures where violations are found.
