A presidential staffer and former secretary of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Illegal Mining, Mr Charles Bissue has discontinued his Judicial Review application against the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP).
Mr Bissue is being prosecuted by the OSP at the Accra High Court, for allegedly accepting money from undercover journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas.
Mr Bissue filed the motion for judicial review on June 2, on grounds that the OSP breached the provisions of Act 959 when the Office investigated only him excluding Anas Aremeyaw of Tiger Eye PI.
It is the case of Mr Bissue that Anas admitted he was involved in the commission of the offence.
The applicant told the court that he withdrew the motion for judicial review so he would concentrate on the suit he filed at a different court seeking the enforcement of his fundamental human rights.
Mr Bissue said the Special Prosecutor (SP), Mr Kissi Adjebeng acted irrationally and unfairly because Mr Martin Amidu, had said during his tenure as the SP that he was investigating both him (Bissue) and Mr Aremeyaw.
In the application for judicial review, Mr Bissue wanted the court to declare that upon a true and proper interpretation of the section 3(1)(b) of Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), it is mandatory for the Office of the Special Prosecutor to investigate and/or prosecute both the public officer and private person(s) involved in the commission of the alleged offence.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
He asked the court for a declaration that accordingly, any investigations of the applicant by the respondent must of necessity include investigations of Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye PI.
He asked the court to hold that the investigation of only the applicant by the respondent, without investigating Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye PI, is contrary to section 3(1)(b) of Act 959 and therefore unlawful.
Mr Bissue asked the court for an order of certiorari directed at the respondent, quashing the outcome of the aforesaid investigation of only the applicant by the respondent for being contrary to section 3(1)(b) of Act 959.
An order of prohibition directed at the respondent, to restrain the Respondent from prosecuting the applicant on the basis of the aforesaid investigation of only the applicant, done by the respondent.
Mr Bissue wanted an order of prohibition directed at the respondent, to restrain the respondent from investigating and/or prosecuting the applicant to the exclusion of Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye PI
