The Executive Director of the Independent Human Rights Commission (INCHR), Urias Teh Pour, says the ‘resolution’ requesting for election of another Vice-Chairperson is not guaranteed by the Commission’s Act of 2005.
Mr. Pour said professionally, a communication that borders on accusations and hinges on the integrity of INCHR require a response for clarity and setting the record straight.
The INCHR Executive Director said the action of Commissioners Boker-Wilson, Allison and Fahnbulleh are in clear violation of Article XI 1& 2 of the Commission’s 2005 Act, describing their resolution as an act of distraction intended to divert the administration’s attention from an ongoing sexual harassment case that is being investigated by the Commission.
In what he termed as a reflection of the position of the office of the Executive Director in response to the declaration of a vote of no confidence in the Vice Chairperson, Director Pour dismissed all the allegations levied against Commissioner Charles Harris as being untrue.
He wondered how can the accusations regarding the Vice Chairperson which appears to be the subject of the ‘resolution’ as stated by the contending commissioners be the root causes of the ongoing strife and division currently ongoing at the INCHR when the Act provides means to resolve matters.
He stated that the signatories to the resolution have provided a very clear answer to their claims by citing Article X (7) which states that ‘The Vice Chairperson of the Commission shall be the deputy to the Chairperson and that he or she shall perform all responsibilities of the Chairperson in his or her absence or incapacity.’
“Clearly, one can see that Chairperson is not absent nor is he incapacitated. How can the Vice Chairperson arrogate upon himself what the law does not give him? How is he suppose to ‘perform all responsibilities of the Chairperson’ when the Chairperson is active, capable and making administrative decisions,” the INCHR Executive Director pointed out.
Commissioners Pela Boker-Wilson, Pindarious Allison and Mohammed Fahnbulleh raised several issues ranging from the lack of audit, administrative procedural errors, misappropriations of funds, usurpation of roles and responsibilities and the breakdown of channels in the workings of the Secretariat particularly and the Commission generally to which they as a two-third majority that voted Charles Harris have no option but to declare a Vote of No Confidence in him as the Vice Chairperson on the Board of Commissioners.
In what then is the better appreciation of the resolution, Director Pour said preliminarily that there was no Board of Commissioners’ meeting from which a decision of a ‘Declaration of vote of no confidence in the Vice Chairperson’ was made.
Stating Article XI (1) of the INCHR Act of 2005 he said it provides that the Commission shall meet at such time and place as the Chairperson may think fit and going further reminded the Article X (4) avers that the Chairperson shall preside over ‘all’ meetings of the Commission and shall be the spokesperson of the Commission.
“On the strength of the provisions of the Act, the meeting from which a ‘resolution’ was derived is not consistent with the Act. Moreover, the Article XI (11) of the Act provides that decision emanating from the Commission shall carry the Commission’s seal,” the Executive Director expressed.
Article XI (11) reads, “Judicial notice shall be taken of the seal of the Commission any document purporting to be an instrument made by the Commission and be sealed with the seal of the Commission shall be received in evidence and be such instrument without proof unless the contrary is shown,” therefore, Atty Pour said the decision of a resolution signed by the three Commissioners is of no legal effect.
On the issue that the decision of no confidence and the request to for a Board of Commissioners Meeting for the election of a new Vice Chairperson is being referenced in Article XI (5) which states, that ‘The Commissioners shall elect a Vice Chairperson for the Commission from among themselves by a two-third majority vote,’ Mr. Pour responded that there is absolutely no provision of the INCHR Act of 2005 that provides that a Vice Chairperson elected from amongst his/her fellow Commissioners shall be removed.
He cited Article XV which provides that the Chairperson of the Commission shall hold office for six years while other Commissioners shall hold office for five years. The Vice Chairperson shall be duly elected by his /her fellow Commissioners to serve his/her tenure except for cause and those causes provided in the Act for which the President may dismiss upon impeachment by the Legislature including, gross misconduct in a court of law, for treason, bribery, misapplication of entrusted property, or other felonies.
“The aforementioned reasons have not been stated in the ‘Resolution.’ Assuming without admitting that these allegations have relevance, where is the due process? How could some Commissioners meet to decide to remove someone elected without a cause?,” he explained.
However, diverting his responsibility to Atty Pour to review the resolution though consistent with articles 11 (para12) of the INCHR Act of 2005 many see it as an act of the Chairperson not giving his colleagues credence because according to him, the resolution is not a BoC decision to warrant the application of the provision mentioned.
