Indicted High Court judge Justice Paul Uuter Dery has sued the Director-General of the Criminal Investigations Department of the Ghana Police Service for inviting him to help in investigations over the judicial corruption scandal.

Dery has also sued Anas Aremeyaw Anas’ Tiger Eye PI firm and the Attorney General as first and third defendants respectively in the case.

The embattled judge is already in court fighting the Chief Justice Georgina Woode and Anas Aremeyaw Anas and his Tiger Eye PI firm over moves to impeach him over the scandal.

Dery and 33 other judges were caught on tape allegedly taking bribes to compromise cases before them. Anas and his Tiger Eye team planted hidden cameras as agents and court clerks were used to induce the judges.

Seven High Court and 22 lower court judges are on suspension over the scandal as two separate five-member committees investigate the case while the Criminal Investigations Department of the police probes the criminal aspect of the case.

Justice Dery argues in his Statement of Claim that: “Invitation by the 2nd Defendant [the CID boss] to its office to assist in investigations into the allegations levelled against him by the 1st Defendant [Tiger Eye PI] is unconstitutional and unlawful.”

Dery is therefore seeking the following:

a) A declaration that having regard to suit numbers AP 228/15 and J1/29/15, in court challenging the petition filed by the 1st Defendant against the Plaintiff, the 2nd Defendant cannot purport to investigate the Plaintiff.

b) A declaration that on a true and proper construction of Article 127(3) of the 1992 Constitution, the judgment delivered by the Plaintiff in the case titled The Republic v. Kwame Dzato in the exercise of the Plaintiff’s power as a Justice of the Superior Court is immune from a civil or criminal proceedings for any act or omission by the Plaintiff in the exercise of the said power.

c) A declaration that on a true and proper construction of Article 127(3) of the 1992 Constitution, any complaint lodged by the 1st Defendant with the 2nd Defendant against the Plaintiff in respect of the judgment he delivered in the case title The Republic v. Kwame Dzato in the exercise of the Plaintiff’s power as a Justice of the Superior Court is in contravention of Article 127(3) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore unconstitutional.

d) A declaration that on a true and proper construction of Article 127(3) of the 1992 Constitution, the Plaintiff as a Justice of a Superior Court, cannot be investigated by the 2nd Defendant, its assigns, agents and privies for any act or omission by him in the exercise of his judicial power in the judgment he delivered in the case: The Republic v. Kwame Dzato.

e) A declaration that on a true and proper construction of Article 127(3) of the 1992 Constitution, the Plaintiff as a Justice of a Superior Court, cannot be prosecuted by the 3rd Defendant, its assigns, agents and privies for any act or omission by him in the exercise of his judicial power in the judgment he delivered in the case: The Republic v. Kwame Dzato.

f) A perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from commencing any criminal investigation against the Plaintiff in the exercise of his judicial power in the judgment he delivered in the case: The Republic v. Kwame Dzato.

g) A perpetual injunction restraining the 3rd Defendant from commencing any civil or criminal action against the Plaintiff in the exercise of his judicial power in the judgment he delivered in the case: The Republic v. Kwame Dzato.

h) Cost including legal fees.

i) Any other order (s) that the Honourable Court may deem fit to make.

DATED IN ACCRA THIS 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015.