Aluta continua...

Despite ceasing the bloody strike and arbitration underway, Chris Ackumey marches GMA, Officials to Court.

There is an expected firework at the Accra High Court today as the Cocoa Affairs Court hears a fresh action against the Ghana Medical Association brought before it by a lawyer and a member of the NDC (National Democratic Congress) Legal team, Lawyer Chris Ackumey.

It poses to be an interesting battle that may not only leave a lesson for legal students and practitioners but may open a new page in the recent debate over the legibility of the nation’s doctors to go on strike after their recent three weeks work to rule action which left some families across the country bereaved.
More interesting is the fact that the court has already thrown out a similar case against the Ghana Medical Association on reasons that the plaintiff, a non-governmental organisation lacks capacity to bring such actions before it.
But the Lawyer, Chris Arcman-Akumey of BCMS Consulting, sueing through David Annan ESQ. another crack lawyer of Nii Odoi Annan & Co. ASERE CHAMBERS, is claiming to have the locus to bring the controversial GMA, its President, Dr. Emmanuel Adom Winful and its Deputy General Secretary, Dr. Lawrence Serebuor to answer for the spoils of their decision to hang their tools in demand for salary rise.

The waterloo of the doctors strike lies in the fact that section 161 of the Labour Act (651) 2003 stipulates the guidelines for embarking on a party to an industrial dispute that affect workers engaged in an essential service, such as doctors.

The statement of claim indicated that Lawyer Chris Ackumey is a legal Practitioner licensed in Ghana, a Ghanaian by birth and therefore a citizen of Ghana.
Among other things, Chris Akumey, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that organisations providing Essential Services as defined by Act 651 vand LI 1833 are prohibited from proceeding on strike irrespective of the merits of their cause or grieviance.
Even though this request is strange as it may be affecting the rights of the doctors who are also covered by human rights provisions it is non-the-less the prerogative of the court to once and for all give the true interpretation to the these legal conundrum.
The plaintiff also expects the court to declare that the strike embarked upon by GMA is improper and illegal, that the strike action portrays the defendants action and conduct as irresponsible, malicious, vexatious, wilfully opressive and inimical to the security safety and welbeing of the public and therefore the public interest.
Most controversial is the order being sought from the court to remove the entire executive of the Ghana Medical Association as presently constituted.
Narrating the genesis of the GMA strike action in his statement of claim, Chris Ackumey stated in furtherance of the fair wages and Salary Commission (FWSC)’s effort to migrate all public sector workers to the single spine salary structure, ‘SSSS’, the FWSC held several meetings with the various groups within the health sector such as the defendants, the Ghana Registered Nurses Association (GRNA) the Health Service Workers Union (HSWU) of the Trades Union Congress (TUC).
In the course of one of these meetings, according to the claim, the GMA representatives stormed out of the meeting in demand that they be dealt with separately which demand was met by the FWSC.
Subsequently, the plaintiff says “a dispute arose between the Fair Wages and Salary Commission and the GMA over the determination of Market Premiums which would contribute to establishing the level of migration.
It may be recalled that in the wake of the doctors’ recent strike action a Coalition of Non-Governmental Organisations in Health filed a motion on notice to compel the GMA to call off the strike by its members.
But counsel for the GMA, Nene Amegatcher raised preliminary objections to the motion, arguing the applicants lacked the capacity in law to sue the doctors, for, according to the Labour Act (Act 651), only the National Labour Commission can bring a case against the doctors to seek to compel them to call off the strike. He described the motion as "incurably bad", and called on the court to dismiss it.
The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Eric Obimpeh, subsequently upheld Mr Amegatcher's argument and struck out the case Tuesday morning.
Dismissing the suit, the court advised the coalition to apply to the Human Rights Division of the High Court, if it so wishes.

But counsel for the applicants, Mr James Odartey Mills, said that won't be necessary.

He told journalists he was disappointed with the ruling. He said his clients were however happy that they got involved and attempted to save a situation.

Explaining the decision not to re-apply to the Human Rights Court, Mr Odartey Mills said the processes there were laborious and will not serve any practical purpose.

He said an application to the Human Rights Court, will take 21 days for the respondents to bring a response and another 21 days for you to bring a reply, so 21, 21, 21 and it is practically impossible" to achieve the aim of the NGO.