Justice Paul Uuter Dery, a High Court judge involved in the judicial scandal, has filed a fresh suit at the Supreme Court challenging the authority of Chief Justice Georgina Wood to charge any superior court justice with a criminal offence under the Criminal Offences Act.

Other plaintiffs involved in the suit are Justice Mustapha Habib Logoh and Justice Gilbert Ayisi Addo, all High Court judges who were also caught in the bribery scandal.

Anas Aremeyaw Anas, who conducted the investigation, which exposed the judges, has been named as the first defendant while the Chief Justice and the Attorney General are the second and third defendants, respectively.

The three plaintiffs were part of 34 judges exposed in a bribery scandal by Anas.

The exposed judges include 22 magistrates and 12 High Court judges. Anas’ two-year investigative work captured them on video taking bribe to pervert justice.

About 20 of them have been sacked in connection with the exposé.

However, the plaintiffs, in an earlier writ, requested the Supreme Court to strike out the petition of Anas to the Chief Justice and the president of Ghana to have them removed over their involvement in the scandal.

But the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, October 27 that the petition held. The court further established that Anas was the petitioner.

The plaintiffs are now back in court, having established Anas as the petitioner, to seek other reliefs.

The nature of the reliefs sought by counsel for the plaintiffs, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo, in a writ dated October 27, 2016, are as follows:

1. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 19(1); 125(3) & (5); 126(1); and 146(3), (4) & (5) of the 1992 Constitution, the 2nd Defendant, in exercise of her functions under Article 146(3) & (4) of the Constitution, lacks jurisdiction to enquire into a petition that alleges the commission of criminal offences under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), or any penal statute for that matter.

2. A declaration that upon a true and proper interpretation of Articles 88 (3) & (4) and 146 (3), (4) & (5) of the 1992 Constitution, the 2nd Defendant, in exercise of her functions under Article 146(3) & (4) of the Constitution, lacks jurisdiction to charge any Superior Court Justice with any criminal offence under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) or any penal statute for that matter.

3. A declaration that the Committee provided for under Article 146(4) of the Constitution to enquire into petitions pursuant to Article 146(5) of the Constitution, lacks jurisdiction in so far as the petition alleges the commission of criminal offences under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960(Act 29) or any penal statute for that matter.

4. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant, in exercise of her administrative functions under Article 146(3) & (4) of the 1992 Constitution, violated Articles 19(1); 23; 88(3) & (4); 125(3) & (5); 126(1); and 296 of the Constitution.

5. A declaration that the purported ruling of the 2nd Defendant in the purported exercise of her functions under Article 146(3) and (4) of the 1992 Constitution is null and void as same is inconsistent with or in contravention of Articles 19(1); 23; 88(3) & (4); 125(3) & (5); 126(1); and 296 of the Constitution, 1992.

6. Any other order(s) or direction(s) as the Court deems appropriate to make to give effect to the declarations made herein, pursuant to Article 2(2) of the 1992 Constitution.