An Accra High Court has ordered the 37 Military Hospital to disclose findings made by a Board of Inquiry set up to investigate matters relating to the death of Solomon Asare-Kumah.
The Hospital was given 10 days to release the report to the plaintiff, Emmanuel Asare-Kumah.
Although the Hospital claims the report directly touches on confidential security matters and would, therefore, open the floodgates for potential suites, the court said no.
The Presiding Judge, Justice Charles Edward Ekow Baiden, a Court of Appeal judge with additional responsibility of the High Court, failed to see the connection between the Board of Inquiry report on the deceased on national security implications.
According to the judgement delivered on June 4, 2023, even if the Board of Inquiry had the discretion to deny the plaintiff/applicant the right to disclosure, that discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably, and not arbitrary or in a biased manner.
The court could not understand why the same health facility would disclosed information about an allegation on a missing twin, and would turned round to do otherwise in this particular instance.
This, His Lordship Baiden, intimated that “after a lengthy experiments with military regimes, we the people of Ghana began a new path towards constitutional supremacy in 1992.
“The 1992 Constitution we adopted for ourselves embodied the principal of accountability and the protection, and the preservation of fundamental human rights and freedoms. To achieve these solemn goals, the 1992 Constitution vested final judicial power in the judiciary,” hence the order.
Emmanuel has dragged the Attorney-General, Chief of Defence Staff, 37 Military Hospital and Col/Dr. G.A.O. Appiah over the death of his relative.
In the writ of summons, the plaintiff accused the Hospital and its officer, Col/Dr. G.A.O. Appiah, of extortion of GH¢36,200.00, negligence, breach of contract, deceit and unconscionable variation of contract, as well as undue influence.
The court, however, found these allegations in torts, and indicated that so far as the defendants were engaged in commercial transactions, they must necessarily abide by the rules of engagement, including good faith and duty to care.
No cost was awarded against the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.
