You are here: HomeNews2015 10 21Article 388956

General News of Wednesday, 21 October 2015

Source: Graphic.com.gh

Suit filed against Anas adjourned sine die

Hearing of a suit filed at the Supreme Court by a High Court judge caught on video allegedly taking bribe was yesterday adjourned indefinitely to enable court bailiffs to serve legal documents on a party.

Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss a petition filed by Tiger Eye PI, a private company owned by ace investigator, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, calling for his Mr Justice Dery’s) removal.

According to him, the petition should be declared null and void because its contents had been leaked, in contravention with Article 146 (80) of the 1992 Constitution.

But the state has asked for the extension of time to file its affidavit in opposition.

The registrar of the court announced at the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday that Tiger Eye PI was yet to be served with the process filed by the state.

Following from that, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Julius Ansah, with Justices Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, A. A. Bennin and J. A. Akamba as members, adjourned the case.

Justice Dery’s case

Mr Justice Dery has argued that the publication of Tiger Eye’s petition to the President in the media, as well as the public screening at the Accra International Conference Centre (AICC) of the evidence (video) and the Judicial Council's naming of the judges involved in the “bribery scandal” in a press release on September 11, 2015, contravened Article 146 (8) of the 1992 Constitution and, therefore, unconstitutional.

He had filed several applications in his strive to block the video from airing.

He was, however, unsuccessful in stopping the AICC from permitting its premises to be used for airing the video. The video was aired on September 22 and 23, 2015 to hundreds of viewers.

The latest writ

His latest writ, filed on his behalf by his lawyer, Nii Kpakpo Samoa of Addo, Addo law firm, is seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to declare, among other issues, that the publication of Tiger Eye’s petition to the President in the media, as well as the public screening at the AICC of the evidence (video) and the Judicial Council's naming of the judges involved in the “bribery scandal” in a press release on September 11, 2015, contravened Article 146 (8) of the 1992 Constitution and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Article 146 (8), which deals with the removal of a justice of the Superior Court or a Chairman of the Regional Tribunal, states, "All proceedings under this article shall be held in camera, and the Justice or Chairman against whom the petition is made is entitled to be heard in his defence by himself or by a lawyer or other expert of his choice."

Taking a cue from that, Mr Justice Dery, therefore, wants the Supreme Court to declare that all proceedings initiated by the Chief Justice arising out of the contents of the petition are null and void.

The defendants in the suit are Tiger Eye PI, the Chief Justice and the Attorney General.

Mr Justice Dery is seeking 10 reliefs from the Supreme Court, including a perpetual injunction against any adjudicating body from determining any issues arising out of the contents of the petition.

He is asking, the Supreme Court to restrain the defendants, their agents, assigns, servants, from any further publishing, printing, reporting, broadcasting, advertising, publicising, distributing and disseminating of the contents of the petition.

The applicant has also urged the court to declare that the conduct of Tiger Eye PI, acting through Anas, in releasing the contents of the petition, through publications in the Crusading Guide newspaper, his personal Facebook page, public screening of the audio visual recordings in support of the petition was in violation of Article 146 (8) of the 1992 Constitution and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Mr Justice Dery has also asked the court to perpetually restrain “any adjudicating body however or whatsoever, described from determining any issues arising out of the contents of the petition”.

Stop impeachment

The applicant is further praying the court to grant a perpetual injunction restraining the Chief Justice, her agents, assigns, servants and successors from any further impeachment proceedings against him.

He is further requesting an order restraining any adjudicating body from determining any issues arising out of the content of the said petition during the pendency of the instant suit before the court.