Anas’ 11 incorruptible Judges may not be that holy – Maurice Ampaw

Read Article

Comments (55)

This article is closed for comments.

Read Comments Comments (55)

Nana Kwaku 8 years ago

Perfectly right they only escape Ana's trap.God's trap is awaiting them on the judgement day.

Perfectly right they only escape Ana's trap.God's trap is awaiting them on the judgement day.
POSTER 8 years ago

What about Maurice Ampaw? Where is his pledge to bring Castro from wherever he is hiding? What about his promise to seek justice for that young girl who was raped, impregnated and given to her attacker in marriage? What happe ...
read full comment

What about Maurice Ampaw? Where is his pledge to bring Castro from wherever he is hiding? What about his promise to seek justice for that young girl who was raped, impregnated and given to her attacker in marriage? What happened to his deference of a known extortionist Kwabla? Maurice Ampaw should stop this cheap route to fame.
ATSU, HO 8 years ago

AT RANDOM THESE JUDGES PROVED THAT THEY STOOD FOR PRINCIPLE. THIS CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH ACCEPTING EARLY LUNCH FROM PEOPLE THAT ONE DOES NOT KNOW - BIG SHAME

AT RANDOM THESE JUDGES PROVED THAT THEY STOOD FOR PRINCIPLE. THIS CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH ACCEPTING EARLY LUNCH FROM PEOPLE THAT ONE DOES NOT KNOW - BIG SHAME
OLD SOLDIER 8 years ago

ARREST THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE JUSTICE ATUGUBA

ARREST THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE JUSTICE ATUGUBA
Nana Malik 8 years ago

Be quiet, fool.

Be quiet, fool.
Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 8 years ago

For the first, I am afraid I agree with this attention seeking lawyer but for a different reason. The eleven lawyers also have questions to answer. If they were not made aware after the failure of the bribery attempt, that it ...
read full comment

For the first, I am afraid I agree with this attention seeking lawyer but for a different reason. The eleven lawyers also have questions to answer. If they were not made aware after the failure of the bribery attempt, that it was an investigative work, then why did they not report the attempted bribery for the culprits to be arrested? It's not good enough for them to just say we did not take the bribe but failed to report to to the appropriate authorities. That raises a huge question mark, a liability and for that reason they should not be celebrated as whiter than white.
G. K. Berko 8 years ago

The attempts to bribe the 11 Judges could have been stopped by early signs of their incorruptibility, at a point where not enough evidence could have been garnered to bring the tempters to book.

The other scenario is that ...
read full comment

The attempts to bribe the 11 Judges could have been stopped by early signs of their incorruptibility, at a point where not enough evidence could have been garnered to bring the tempters to book.

The other scenario is that incorruptible Judges could also be sensitive to the ultimate plight of the culprits and their families and might not want to add to the difficulties the families or loved ones of the Culprits would be going through by causing their arrest, too.

Many an honest Judge would also offer a potential culprit the chance to bale out before committing the crime by giving the tempter a stern warning.

But surely, if there were incessant attempts to ensnare the 'honest, incorruptible' Judges, they should think of filing, at least, their protest against the investigators.

Nevertheless, just like the DEA and other Law Enforcement Agencies could legally ensnare culprits to get them commit their usual crimes to be arrested with red-hot evidence, so could Anas and his team be exempted from any charges of entrapping the Judges, including those who successfully repelled their baits.

Long Live Ghana!!!
T'pau 8 years ago

Spot on.

Spot on.
Kojo Essoun 8 years ago

Stop making noise to make yourself popular. Lawyers corrupt judges most of the time

Stop making noise to make yourself popular. Lawyers corrupt judges most of the time
Eric Tetteh 8 years ago

We the carpenters say everyday for the thief but one day for the master

We the carpenters say everyday for the thief but one day for the master
LIKPAKPALN NIMBIL 8 years ago

Atleast they are better you ampaw

Atleast they are better you ampaw
Mama Tula 8 years ago

There is no smoke without fire. Or perhaps this Ampaw man have succeeded in bribing any of them?? If so, he must come forward to tell the public and stop throwing dust into our face.

There is no smoke without fire. Or perhaps this Ampaw man have succeeded in bribing any of them?? If so, he must come forward to tell the public and stop throwing dust into our face.
stv 8 years ago

Why is this man always speaking anyhow?
Negative minded guy

Why is this man always speaking anyhow?
Negative minded guy
BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ. 8 years ago

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, BARRISTER-AT LAW, QCL, PLC, DPA, CPA, BA (HONS) {GHANA}, MASTER OF LAWS (LLM) {NEW YORK, USA} PENDING, MEMBER, INTERNATIONAL (WORLD/GLOBAL) BAR ASSOCIATION, MEMBER, COMMONWEALTH LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, ASSO ...
read full comment

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, BARRISTER-AT LAW, QCL, PLC, DPA, CPA, BA (HONS) {GHANA}, MASTER OF LAWS (LLM) {NEW YORK, USA} PENDING, MEMBER, INTERNATIONAL (WORLD/GLOBAL) BAR ASSOCIATION, MEMBER, COMMONWEALTH LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATE MEMBER, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, MEMBER, GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION

EBAA LAW CONSULT
ORCA DECO (TOKU) BUILDING, 1ST
FLOOR
P.O. BOX AN 5966
ACCRA.
GHANA.

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, INTERNATIONAL LAWYER photo BenonyTonyAmekudzi2.jpg

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT

TEL: 0545758633

MOBILE NO: 0245848560

NOTE: (SENDING THIS E-MAIL AT HO IN THE VOLTA REGION OF GHANA)

TO: HER LADYSHIP CHIEF JUSTICE OF GHANA GEORGINA THEODORA WOOD
HON. MINISTER OF JUSTICE & ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GHANA MARIETTA BREW
APPIAH OPPONG
HER LADYSHIP JUSTICE OF SUPREME COURT ADINYIRA
HON. PRESIDENT OF GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION NENE AMEGATCHER

INFO TO:
H.E.PRESIDENT OF GHANA DR.JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA
H.E.VICE PRESIDENT OF GHANA KWESI AMISSAH ARTHUR
RT.HON.SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT OF GHANA EDWARD DOE ADZAHO
HON. MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS & REGIONAL INTEGRATION HANNAH TETTEY
HON. MINISTER OF INTERIOR
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF GHANA POLICE SERVICE MOHAMMED ALHASSAN
DIRECTOR OF BNI

SPECIAL INFO ALERT TO:
H.E.DR.MR.PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BARACK OBAMA
HON. SECRETARY OF STATE OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JOHN KERRY
DIRECTOR OF FBI

DATE: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
SUBJECT: AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE JUDGES/MAGISTRATES AND STAFF OF THE JUDICIAL SERVICE PURPORTED TO BE IMPLICATED BY THE SECRET VIDEO EXPOSE OF ANAS AMEREYAW ANAS TAKING COGNIZANCE OF ARTICLE 18 (2) OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION, THE EVIDENCE ACT AND THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER OF DECLARATIONS OF FREEDOM AND HUMAN RIGHTS, THERETO.
IT IS A TRITE LAW AND KNOWLEDGE THAT ANYTHING THAT TOUCHES AND CONCERNS "VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS IS EQUALLY WRONG TO ADOPT "ILLEGAL AND CLANDESTINE SECRET MEANS TO OBTAIN ILLEGAL MATERIAL".
IT IS THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THAT I AM RESPECTFULLY REFERRING TO ANAS AMEREYAW PHOTOGRAPHS BELOW AS EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE ILLEGAL AND SECRET CLANDESTINE METHODS ADOPTED TO OBTAIN ILLEGAL MATERIALS/EVIDENCE, THERETO, BELOW:

Anas Aremeyaw Anas's photo.
Anas Aremeyaw Anas's photo.
Anas Aremeyaw Anas added 2 new photos — with Ibrahim Mohammed Hashimudeen and 8 others.

Anas Aremeyaw Anas Masked
Anas Aremeyaw Anas

IT IS THEREFORE AT THESE RELATED BACKDROPS THAT I AM AGAIN REVISITING AND TO PUT SAME IN ISSUE THE CASE THAT I HAVE ALREADY MADE AS FOLLOWS:

RE: THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE ANAS AREMEYAW SECRET VIDEO RECORDINGS OF THE 34 JUDGES/MAGISTRATES AND 100 JUDICIAL STAFFS AND THE LEGAL POSITIONS AS A WAY FORWARD FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF GHANA JURISPRUDENCE.REFRESHING MEMORIES AND UPDATE NOTES FOR THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROTECTION OF ARTICLE 18 CLAUSES 1 & 2 OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION AND UNITED NATIONS CHARTER OF DECLARATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND

TAKING ALSO COGNIZANCE OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS AS FOLLOWS:

UNITED NATIONS CHARTER OF UNIVERSAL DECLARATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
"Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour/honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

THAT A CLEAR CLASSICS CASES THAT CALL FOR THE PROTECTIONS OF SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW RELATED RIGHTS ARE THE SECRET VIDEO TAPE RECORDINGS OF THE FOLLOWING WORLD LEADERS WHEN HIS/HER EXCELLENCIES WERE EVEN AT THE TOILETS AND THEIR PRIVACY WERE VIOLATED BY THE "SECRET ILLEGAL VIDEO RECORDERS FOR MISCHIEF AND OTHER CRIMINAL RELATED INTENDED PURPOSES, THERETO, AS FOLLOWS:
(i) H.E.DR.MR.PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BARACK OBAMA
(ii) HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
(iii) HIS PAPACY HOLY FATHER POPE FRANCIS !
(iv) H.E.RT.HON.PRIME MINISTER OF UNITED KINGDOM DAVID CAMERON
(v) H.E.PRESIDENT OF FRANCE FRANCOIS HOLLANDE
(vi) H.E. GERMAN CHANCELLOR ANGELA MERKEL
(vii) H.E.RT.HON.PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL BENJAMIN NETANYAHU
(viii)H.E.PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADAMIR PUTIN
(ix) H.E. UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL BAN-KI MOON
(x) HON. DALA MAI

THAT IT IS AGAINST THESE RELATED BACKDROPS THAT THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF GHANA, GOVERNMENT OF GHANA AND THE CIVILIZED WORLD TO CONSIDER IN THE BEST NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW INTERESTS TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS TO PRIVACY TO HELP REMOVE THE THREAT IT POSES TO THE CIVILIZED WORLD WHILE TO ADOPT A MORE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MEANS AND WAYS TO FIGHT CORRUPTION AND CORRUPT PRACTICES NOT ONLY IN GHANA BUT ALSO IN THE CIVILIZED WORLD.
HOWEVER, MY RESPECTFUL SUBMISSION IS NOT INTENDED TO PLAY DOWN ON ANAS AMEREYAW SECRET VIDEO RECORDINGS INVESTIGATIONS SINCE "IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSED OF THE LAW" BUT TO HELP TO ENCOURAGE HIM AND OTHERS WITH GOODWILL AND GOOD INTENTIONS TO FIGHT CORRUPTION AND CORRUPT PRACTICES TO DO IT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE LAW, THERETO.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
GOD BLESS GHANA, AMERICA, UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED NATIONS.
VERY TRULY YOURS,
BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ.
INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT

From: benony amekudzi

To: Info ; President ; "Minister@Moj.gov.gh" ; President ; Info ; Barack Obama ; "secretary@state.gov" ; "Minister@Mfa.gov.gh" ; Vice ; "vicepresidents@whitehouse.gov" ; GovDelivery ; "president@ghanabar.org" ; White House ; BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI ; Pm ; "speaker@parliament.gh" ; "firstlady@oop.gov.gh" Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 4:31 AM Subject: THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE ANAS AREMEYAW SECRET VIDEO RECORDINGS OF THE 34 JUDGES/MAGISTRATES AND 100 JUDICIAL STAFFS AND THE LEGAL POSITIONS AS A WAY FORWARD FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF GHANA JURISPRUDENCE.

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, BARRISTER-AT LAW, QCL, PLC, DPA, CPA, BA (HONS) {GHANA}, MASTER OF LAWS (LLM) {NEW YORK, USA} PENDING, MEMBER, INTERNATIONAL (WORLD/GLOBAL) BAR ASSOCIATION, MEMBER, COMMONWEALTH LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, ASSOCIATE MEMBER, AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, MEMBER, GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION

EBAA LAW CONSULT
ORCA DECO (TOKU) BUILDING, 1ST
FLOOR
P.O. BOX AN 5966
ACCRA.
GHANA.

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, INTERNATIONAL LAWYER photo BenonyTonyAmekudzi2.jpg

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT

TEL: 0545758633

MOBILE NO: 0245848560

NOTE: (SENDING THIS E-MAIL AT HO IN THE VOLTA REGION OF GHANA)

TO: HER LADYSHIP CHIEF JUSTICE OF GHANA GEORGINA THEODORA WOOD
HON. MINISTER OF JUSTICE & ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GHANA MARIETTA BREW APPIAH-OPPONG
HON. JUDICIAL SECRETARY OF GHANA
HON. PRESIDENT OF GHANA BAR ASSOCIATION NENE AMEGATCHER

INFO TO:
H.E.PRESIDENT OF GHANA DR. JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA
H.E.VICE PRESIDENT OF GHANA KWESI AMISSAH ARTHUR
RT. HON. SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT OF GHANA EDWARD DOE ADZAHO
HON. MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS & REGIONAL INTEGRATION HANNAH TETTEY
HON. MINISTER OF VOLTA REGION OF GHANA HELEN ADJOA NTOSU

SPECIAL INFO ALERT TO:
H.E.DR.MR.PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BARACK OBAMA
H.E. RT. HON.PRIME MINISTER OF UNITED KINGDOM DAVID CAMERON
HON. SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH
HON. SECRETARY OF STATE OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JOHN KERRY

DATE: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2015
HON. CHIEF OF STAFF AT FLAGSTAFF HOUSE JULIUS DEBRAH
SUBJECT:THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE ANAS AREMEYAW SECRET VIDEO RECORDINGS OF THE 34 JUDGES/MAGISTRATES AND 100 JUDICIAL STAFFS AND THE LEGAL POSITIONS AS A WAY FORWARD FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF GHANA JURISPRUDENCE.

MAY I RESPECTFULLY AND HUMBLY SUBMIT MY CANDID OPINION ON THE ABOVE RELATED DICEY MATTER FIRST AS A GHANAIAN LAWYER WHO ALSO BELONGED TO OTHER BAR ASSOCIATIONS AND AS INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT.
THAT IT IS A TRITE LAW AND KNOWLEDGE THAT MATTERS/ISSUES THAT HINGED ON THE LAW ARE DEEMED TO SEEN AND TO BE TREATED FROM THE LEGAL "PAR LANCE" PERSPECTIVE POINTS OF LEGAL VIEWS.
THIS IS BECAUSE MATTERS CONCERNING LAW AND MORALS ARE SEEN DIFFERENTLY SO FAR AS THE LAW IS CONCERNED.
IT IS THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE THAT THE LAWS OF GHANA AS OTHER LAWS OF OTHER COUNTRIES ARE ALSO CODIFIED OR WRITTEN, THERETO.
THAT THE LEGAL SYSTEMS OF GHANA BELONG TO THE "COMMON LAW TRADITION/JURISDICTION" AND FOR THAT MATTER THE "COMMON LAW" IS PART OF THE LAWS OF GHANA AND GHANA CAN THEREFORE RESERVED THE RIGHT TO CITE OR USE THE CASE LAWS OF THE "COMMON LAW JURISDICTIONS".
THAT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND UNITED KINGDOM AS OTHER COUNTRIES BELONGED TO THE "COMMON LAW TRADITIONS/JURISDICTIONS" AND THEREFORE GHANA JUDICIAL AND LEGAL SYSTEMS CAN AND COULD CITE CASE LAWS FROM THESE JURISDICTIONS AS "PERSUASIVE AUTHORITIES", THERETO.
THAT TAKING COGNIZANCE ALSO OF THE FACT THAT GHANA IS A SIGNITORIES TO INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS UNDER THE COMMONWEALTH, UNITED NATIONS, AFRICAN UNION, ECOWAS AND OTHERS, THERETO.
HOWEVER, IT IS SUFFICIENT JUST TO CITE ONLY THESE FEW INSTANCES ABOVE AND TO RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT "ALL APPLICABLE LAWS ARE DEEM TO APPLY TO A CASE AT THE COURTS OF LAW WHENEVER, THERE IS ENSUING LITIGATION, THERETO.
THAT UNDER GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION, CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW AND THE EVIDENCE ACT INCLUDING THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ARE DEEM TO APPLY TO THE CASE OF ANAS AMEREYAW SECRET VIDEO RECORDINGS OF GHANA 34 JUDGES/MAGISTRATES AND OVER 100 JUDICIAL STAFF PURPORTED TO BE SECRETLY VIDEO BY ANS THAT ALLEGED CORRUPTION AND CORRUPT PRACTICES OF THE JUDGES/MAGISTRATES AND THE JUDICIAL STAFF AS PUBLISHED BELOW BY THE "STARR FM ONLINE".
THAT AS A GHANAIAN LAWYER, INTERNATIONAL LAWYER AND LEGAL CONSULTANT THAT IT BEHOOVES ON ME TO RENDER MY CANDID LEGAL OPINION ON THE MATTER TO HELP IN THE EXPOSITION OF THE LEGAL POSITIONS ON THE MATTER TO HELP ADVANCE THE COURSE/CAUSE OF JUSTICE AND THE RULE OF LAW.
THAT GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION CLEARLY PROVIDES FOR THE PROTECTION OF PRIVACY OF HOMES AND PROPERTY AS FOLLOWS:

GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION
PROTECTION OF PRIVACY OF HOME AND OTHER PROPERTY
"
18. (1) Every person has the right to own property either alone or in association with others.

(2) No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of his home, property, correspondence or communication except in accordance with law and as may be necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others "

THAT FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF ANY RELATED DOUBTS, WHATSOEVER, THAT I PERSONALLY WILL NEVER CONDONE CRIME AND MOREOVER TO PURPORT TO DEFEND CRIME, HOWEVER, AS GHANAIAN LAWYER, INTERNATIONAL LAW AND LEGAL CONSULTANT IT BEHOOVES ON ME TO HELP STATE THE POSITIONS OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION AND ALL OTHER LAWS THAT ARE DEEM TO APPLY TO THE CASE UNDER REVIEW AND IN VIEW ALSO OF THE POSITIONS OF
THE SAME LAWS PROTECTING ANAS AMEREYAW WHEN HE UNDERTOOK THAT ONEROUS RESPONSIBILITY, THERETO.
THAT IT IS IN VIEW OF SUCH LEGAL ANALYSIS THAT CLEARLY CALLS TO ISSUE TO PROPER AND TRUE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 18 (2) OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION THAT PROVIDES FOR

No person shall be subjected to interference with the privacy of his home, property, correspondence or communication except in accordance with law and as may be necessary in a free and democratic society for public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others "

IT IS IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE THAT MAKES ANAS AMEREYAW CASE VERY DICEY AND THE LEGAL ISSUE THEREFORE TO BE DETERMINED "WHETHER OR NOT BEFORE ANAS EMBARKED ON HIS SECRET VIDEO RECORDINGS INVESTIGATIONS OF THE JUDGES/MAGISTRATES AND OTHER JUDICIAL STAFF HE WAS SUPPOSED TO OBTAIN "A VALID COURT ORDER AS A PROTECTION?"
FURTHER, WHETHER OR NOT HIS PETITION TO H.E.PRESIDENT OF GHANA DR.JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA AND HON.MINISTER OF JUSTICE & ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GHANA MARIETTA BREW APPIAH-OPPONG WHEN HE PRESENTED HIS SECRET INVESTIGATIONS REPORT AND HE WAS GRANTED "IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS" SERVED AS A RELIEF FROM NOT OBTAINING THE VALID COURT ORDER BEFORE EMBARKING ON THE SECRET INVESTIGATIONS, THERETO? OR THE "IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITIES HAS BEEN BACK DATED TO COVER THE BEGINNING OF THE SECRET INVESTIGATIONS, THERETO?"
IF YES, THEN WHAT IS THE POSITION OF THE RULE OF LAW? BUT IF THE ANSWER IS NO THEN WHAT IS THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS, THERETO?
THAT IT IS MY RESPECTFUL AND HUMBLE SUBMISSION THAT ANSWERS TO THE ABOVE RELATED QUESTIONS WILL HELP PAVE WAY TO THE RESOLUTIONS OR DETERMINATIONS OF THE ANAS CASE, THERETO.
THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF ARTICLE 18 CLAUSES1 & 2 TO BE TAKEN A JUDICIAL NOTICE AT WHEN BOTH GHANA JUDGES/MAGISTRATES AND LAWYERS DEDICATED EVERY YEAR JUNE 30 AS "MATYRS DAY" AND DULY OBSERVED SAME SINCE OUR DEAR THREE (3) HIGH COURT JUSTICES AND ARMY OFFICER WERE ALL PICKED UP FROM THEIR VARIOUS HOUSES AND WERE MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD AND BURNT INTO ASHES INCLUDING THE LATE MR.ANKRA FROM AGORTIME- AFEGAME WHO WAS ALSO PICKED FROM HIS HOUSE AT NIGHT AND MURDERED IN COLD BLOOD AND ALSO BURNT IN ASHES. HOWEVER, HIS CASE NEVER RECEIVED NATIONAL ATTENTION AS IT OUGHT TO GAIN AT THE TIME.
THAT REALLY CALLS FOR THE NEED TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF HOMES AND PROPERTY.
THAT IN THE CASE OF CLEMENCE ATIASU VRS. THE REPUBLIC (SUIT NO.P22CLEMENT ATIA/9/2015) THAT CAME ON APPEAL AT THE HIGH COURT-2, HO IN THE VOLTA REGION OF GHANA PRESIDED OVER BY HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE PATRICK BAAYEH THAT SIMILAR ARGUMENTS WERE MADE BY ME WHEN I WAS THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT WHEN THE POLICE OF THE NARCOTIC UNIT FROM THE VOLTA REGIONAL POLICE HEADQUARTERS WITHOUT "A VALID SEARCH WARRANT" CONDUCTED AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AT 4.30AM AT THE APPELLANT HOUSE AT KPEDZE IN THE VOLTA REGION AT THE TIME THE APPELLANT JUST RETURNED FROM A FUNERAL AT AVE- DAKPA AT 9.30PM WHEN HE INTIMATED THAT SOMEONE POSED A THREAT AGAINST HIS LIFE THAT HE WAS GOING TO SHOW HIM AND AT DAWN POLICE OFFICERS FROM THE NARCOTICS UNIT CAME TO HIS HOUSE AND CONDUCTED ILLEGAL SEARCH AND RETRIEVED "CANIBIS" WHICH TESTED POSITIVE AND HE WAS CHARGED FOR CULTIVATION AND POSSESSION OF "CANIBIS SUBSTANCE".
THAT THE ARGUMENTS I MADE USING ARTICLE 18 (2) OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION AND THE EVIDENCE ACT AND THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW THAT THE HIGH COURT TO OVER-TURN THE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGEMENT AND TO ACQUIT AND DISCHARGE THE APPELLANT WAS REJECTED BY THE HIGH COURT AND EVEN THE CASE MADE ON THE APPELLANT SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITIONS REPORTED BY HO PRISON MEDIUM AUTHORITIES WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE HIGH COURT.
HOWEVER, HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE PATRICK BAAYEH IN HIS JUDGEMENT CLEARLY STATED THAT IT IS ONLY H.E.PRESIDENT OF GHANA DR.JOHN DRAMANI MAHAMA ALONE WHO CAN OR COULD GRANT THE APPELLANT PARDON.
IT IS THEREFORE, SURPRISING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED THE PARDON UPTIL NOW.
IT IS THEREFORE, MY RESPECTFUL AND HUMBLE SUBMISSION THAT LEGAL EFFECT TO BE GIVEN IN A FAIR MEANS AND MANNER TO THE INTERPRETATIONS AND APPLICATIONS OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION AND OTHER LAWS OF GHANA TAKING INTO CONTEMPLATION ALSO THE INTERNATIONAL LAW.
IT IS THEREFORE AT THESE RELATED BACKDROPS THAT I AM RESPECTFULLY OBLIGED TO REFER TO THE EVIDENCE ACT OF GHANA AND GHANA COMMUNICATIONS ACT AND HUMBLY SUBMIT AS FOLLOWS:

THAT SECTION 94 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT (ACT 30/60) DULY PROVIDES AGAINST "ILLEGAL SEARCHES, THAT IS, SEARCHES WITHOUT A VALID SEARCH WARRANT BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION".
THAT IN THE CASE OF ANAS WHO CONDUCTED A SECRET VIDEO RECORDINGS OF THE JUDGES/MAGISTRATES IN QUESTION WITHOUT OBTAINING "A VALID COURT ORDER" IN VIEW OF THE EXCLUSIONARY EVIDENTIAL RULES THAT "ANY ILLEGAL MATERIAL OBTAINED THROUGH ILLEGAL MEANS THAT THE EVIDENTIAL ILLEGAL MATERIALS ARE EXCLUSIVE FROM THE RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE RECORDS IT SERVED AS "POISONOUS" UNDER THE "DOCTRINE OF THE POISONOUS TREE, A PRINCIPLE OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND IN GHANA UNDER THE EXCLUSIONARY EVIDENCE RULE THAT SUCH ILLEGAL OBTAINED MATERIALS TO BE 'EXPUNGED FROM THE RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS".
THEREFORE, THE SECRET VIDEO TAPE RECORDINGS OF ANAS AMEREYAW CLEARLY FALLS UNDER THE EXCLUSIONARY EVIDENCE RULE AND TO BE RENDERED A NULLITY, THERETO.
THAT TAKING ALSO COGNIZANCE OF THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS AS FOLLOWS:

UNITED NATIONS CHARTER OF UNIVERSAL DECLARATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

IT IS THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF JUSTICE AND PROTECTIONS OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT I AM RESPECTFULLY CITING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE BELOW AS "A PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY" AND ALSO TO HELP GHANA JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND GOVERNMENT OF GHANA TO HELP REFORM GHANA JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO REALLY FIT INTO THE GLOBAL LEGAL AND JUDICIAL SYSTEMS OF THE 21ST CENTURY WORLD TO HELP DEVELOP GHANA JURISPRUDENCE AS A WAY FORWARD, THERETO.

PLEASE, REFER TO THE CASE BELOW:

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOURTH (4TH) AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RIGHTS AND CASE LAW AS AN "ORBITA DICTA" OR PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY:

United States Supreme Court
MAPP v. OHIO, (1961)
No. 236
Argued: March 29, 1961 Decided: June 19, 1961
All evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Federal Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 , overruled insofar as it holds to the contrary. Pp. 643-660.
170 Ohio St. 427, 166 N. E. 2d 387, reversed.
A. L. Kearns argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Walter L. Greene.
Gertrude Bauer Mahon argued the cause for appellee. With her on the brief was John T. Corrigan.
Bernard A. Berkman argued the cause for the American Civil Liberties Union et al., as amici curiae, urging reversal. With him on the brief was Rowland Watts.
MR. JUSTICE CLARK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant stands convicted of knowingly having had in her possession and under her control certain lewd and lascivious books, pictures, and photographs in violation of 2905.34 of Ohio's Revised Code. 1 As officially stated in the syllabus to its opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio found that her conviction was valid though "based primarily upon the introduction in evidence of lewd and lascivious books and pictures unlawfully seized during an unlawful search of defendant's home . . . ." 170 Ohio St. 427-428, 166 N. E. 2d 387, 388. [367 U.S. 643, 644]
On May 23, 1957, three Cleveland police officers arrived at appellant's residence in that city pursuant to information that "a person [was] hiding out in the home, who was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing, and that there was a large amount of policy paraphernalia being hidden in the home." Miss Mapp and her daughter by a former marriage lived on the top floor of the two-family dwelling. Upon their arrival at that house, the officers knocked on the door and demanded entrance but appellant, after telephoning her attorney, refused to admit them without a search warrant. They advised their headquarters of the situation and undertook a surveillance of the house.
The officers again sought entrance some three hours later when four or more additional officers arrived on the scene. When Miss Mapp did not come to the door immediately, at least one of the several doors to the house was forcibly opened 2 and the policemen gained admittance. Meanwhile Miss Mapp's attorney arrived, but the officers, having secured their own entry, and continuing in their defiance of the law, would permit him neither to see Miss Mapp nor to enter the house. It appears that Miss Mapp was halfway down the stairs from the upper floor to the front door when the officers, in this highhanded manner, broke into the hall. She demanded to see the search warrant. A paper, claimed to be a warrant, was held up by one of the officers. She grabbed the "warrant" and placed it in her bosom. A struggle ensued in which the officers recovered the piece of paper and as a result of which they handcuffed appellant because she had been "belligerent" [367 U.S. 643, 645] in resisting their official rescue of the "warrant" from her person. Running roughshod over appellant, a policeman "grabbed" her, "twisted [her] hand," and she "yelled [and] pleaded with him" because "it was hurting." Appellant, in handcuffs, was then forcibly taken upstairs to her bedroom where the officers searched a dresser, a chest of drawers, a closet and some suitcases. They also looked into a photo album and through personal papers belonging to the appellant. The search spread to the rest of the second floor including the child's bedroom, the living room, the kitchen and a dinette. The basement of the building and a trunk found therein were also searched. The obscene materials for possession of which she was ultimately convicted were discovered in the course of that widespread search.
At the trial no search warrant was produced by the prosecution, nor was the failure to produce one explained or accounted for. At best, "There is, in the record, considerable doubt as to whether there ever was any warrant for the search of defendant's home." 170 Ohio St., at 430, 166 N. E. 2d, at 389. The Ohio Supreme Court believed a "reasonable argument" could be made that the conviction should be reversed "because the `methods' employed to obtain the [evidence] . . . were such as to `offend "a sense of justice,"'" but the court found determinative the fact that the evidence had not been taken "from defendant's person by the use of brutal or offensive physical force against defendant." 170 Ohio St., at 431, 166 N. E. 2d, at 389-390.
The State says that even if the search were made without authority, or otherwise unreasonably, it is not prevented from using the unconstitutionally seized evidence at trial, citing Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), in which this Court did indeed hold "that in a prosecution in a State court for a State crime the Fourteenth Amendment [367 U.S. 643, 646] does not forbid the admission of evidence obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure." At p. 33. On this appeal, of which we have noted probable jurisdiction, 364 U.S. 868 , it is urged once again that we review that holding. 3
I.
Seventy-five years ago, in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886), considering the Fourth 4 and Fifth Amendments as running "almost into each other" 5 on the facts before it, this Court held that the doctrines of those Amendments
"apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, [367 U.S. 643, 647] that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property . . . . Breaking into a house and opening boxes and drawers are circumstances of aggravation; but any forcible and compulsory extortion of a man's own testimony or of his private papers to be used as evidence to convict him of crime or to forfeit his goods, is within the condemnation . . . [of those Amendments]."
The Court noted that
"constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. . . . It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." At p. 635.
In this jealous regard for maintaining the integrity of individual rights, the Court gave life to Madison's prediction that "independent tribunals of justice . . . will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights." I Annals of Cong. 439 (1789). Concluding, the Court specifically referred to the use of the evidence there seized as "unconstitutional." At p. 638.
Less than 30 years after Boyd, this Court, in Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), stated that
"the Fourth Amendment . . . put the courts of the United States and Federal officials, in the exercise of their power and authority, under limitations and restraints [and] . . . forever secure[d] the people, their persons, houses, papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law . . . and the duty of giving to it force and effect is obligatory upon all entrusted under our Federal system with the enforcement of the laws." At pp. 391-392. [367 U.S. 643, 648]
Specifically dealing with the use of the evidence unconstitutionally seized, the Court concluded:
"If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land." At p. 393.
Finally, the Court in that case clearly stated that use of the seized evidence involved "a denial of the constitutional rights of the accused." At p. 398. Thus, in the year 1914, in the Weeks case, this Court "for the first time" held that "in a federal prosecution the Fourth Amendment barred the use of evidence secured through an illegal search and seizure." Wolf v. Colorado, supra, at 28. This Court has ever since required of federal law officers a strict adherence to that command which this Court has held to be a clear, specific, and constitutionally required - even if judicially implied - deterrent safeguard without insistence upon which the Fourth Amendment would have been reduced to "a form of words." Holmes, J., Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392 (1920). It meant, quite simply, that "conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions . . . should find no sanction in the judgments of the courts . . .," Weeks v. United States, supra, at 392, and that such evidence "shall not be used at all." Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, supra, at 392. [367 U.S. 643, 649]
There are in the cases of this Court some passing references to the Weeks rule as being one of evidence. But the plain and unequivocal language of Weeks - and its later paraphrase in Wolf - to the effect that the Weeks rule is of constitutional origin, remains entirely undisturbed. In Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28 (1927), a unanimous Court declared that "the doctrine [cannot] . . . be tolerated under our constitutional system, that evidences of crime discovered by a federal officer in making a search without lawful warrant may be used against the victim of the unlawful search where a timely challenge has been interposed." At pp. 29-30 (emphasis added). The Court, in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), in unmistakable language restated the Weeks rule:
"The striking outcome of the Weeks case and those which followed it was the sweeping declaration that the Fourth Amendment, although not referring to or limiting the use of evidence in courts, really forbade its introduction if obtained by government officers through a violation of the Amendment." At p. 462.
In McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), we note this statement:
"[A] conviction in the federal courts, the foundation of which is evidence obtained in disregard of liberties deemed fundamental by the Constitution, cannot stand. Boyd v. United States . . . Weeks v. United States . . . And this Court has, on Constitutional grounds, set aside convictions, both in the federal and state courts, which were based upon confessions `secured by protracted and repeated questioning of ignorant and untutored persons, in whose minds the power of officers was greatly magnified' [367 U.S. 643, 650] . . . or `who have been unlawfully held incommunicado without advice of friends or counsel' . . . ." At pp. 339-340.
Significantly in McNabb, the Court did then pass on to formulate a rule of evidence, saying, "[i]n the view we take of the case, however, it becomes unnecessary to reach the Constitutional issue [for] . . . [t]he principles governing the admissibility of evidence in federal criminal trials have not been restricted . . . to those derived solely from the Constitution." At pp. 340-341.
II.
In 1949, 35 years after Weeks was announced, this Court, in Wolf v. Colorado, supra, again for the first time, 6 discussed the effect of the Fourth Amendment upon the States through the operation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It said:
"[W]e have no hesitation in saying that were a State affirmatively to sanction such police incursion into privacy it would run counter to the guaranty of the Fourteenth Amendment." At p. 28.
Nevertheless, after declaring that the "security of one's privacy against arbitrary intrusion by the police" is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' and as such enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause," cf. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), and announcing that it "stoutly adhere[d]" to the Weeks decision, the Court decided that the Weeks exclusionary rule would not then be imposed upon the States as "an essential ingredient of the right." 338 U.S., at 27 -29. The Court's reasons for not considering essential to the [367 U.S. 643, 651] right to privacy, as a curb imposed upon the States by the Due Process Clause, that which decades before had been posited as part and parcel of the Fourth Amendment's limitation upon federal encroachment of individual privacy, were bottomed on factual considerations.
While they are not basically relevant to a decision that the exclusionary rule is an essential ingredient of the Fourth Amendment as the right it embodies is vouchsafed against the States by the Due Process Clause, we will consider the current validity of the factual grounds upon which Wolf was based.
The Court in Wolf first stated that "[t]he contrariety of views of the States" on the adoption of the exclusionary rule of Weeks was "particularly impressive" (at p. 29); and, in this connection, that it could not "brush aside the experience of States which deem the incidence of such conduct by the police too slight to call for a deterrent remedy . . . by overriding the [States'] relevant rules of evidence." At pp. 31-32. While in 1949, prior to the Wolf case, almost two-thirds of the States were opposed to the use of the exclusionary rule, now, despite the Wolf case, more than half of those since passing upon it, by their own legislative or judicial decision, have wholly or partly adopted or adhered to the Weeks rule. See Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 , Appendix, pp. 224-232 (1960). Significantly, among those now following the rule is California, which, according to its highest court, was "compelled to reach that conclusion because other remedies have completely failed to secure compliance with the constitutional provisions . . . ." People v. Cahan, 44 Cal. 2d 434, 445, 282 P.2d 905, 911 (1955). In connection with this California case, we note that the second basis elaborated in Wolf in support of its failure to enforce the exclusionary doctrine against the States was that "other means of protection" have been afforded "the [367 U.S. 643, 652] right to privacy." 7 338 U.S., at 30 . The experience of California that such other remedies have been worthless and futile is buttressed by the experience of other States. The obvious futility of relegating the Fourth Amendment to the protection of other remedies has, moreover, been [367 U.S. 643, 653] recognized by this Court since Wolf. See Irvine v. California, 347 U.S. 128, 137 (1954).
Likewise, time has set its face against what Wolf called the "weighty testimony" of People v. Defore, 242 N. Y. 13, 150 N. E. 585 (1926). There Justice (then Judge) Cardozo, rejecting adoption of the Weeks exclusionary rule in New York, had said that "[t]he Federal rule as it stands is either too strict or too lax." 242 N. Y., at 22, 150 N. E., at 588. However, the force of that reasoning has been largely vitiated by later decisions of this Court. These include the recent discarding of the "silver platter" doctrine which allowed federal judicial use of evidence seized in violation of the Constitution by state agents, Elkins v. United States, supra; the relaxation of the formerly strict requirements as to standing to challenge the use of evidence thus seized, so that now the procedure of exclusion, "ultimately referable to constitutional safeguards," is available to anyone even "legitimately on [the] premises" unlawfully searched, Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 266 -267 (1960); and, finally, the formulation of a method to prevent state use of evidence unconstitutionally seized by federal agents, Rea v. United States, 350 U.S. 214 (1956). Because there can be no fixed formula, we are admittedly met with "recurring questions of the reasonableness of searches," but less is not to be expected when dealing with a Constitution, and, at any rate, "[r]easonableness is in the first instance for the [trial court] . . . to determine." United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 63 (1950).
It, therefore, plainly appears that the factual considerations supporting the failure of the Wolf Court to include the Weeks exclusionary rule when it recognized the enforceability of the right to privacy against the States in 1949, while not basically relevant to the constitutional consideration, could not, in any analysis, now be deemed controlling. [367 U.S. 643, 654]
III.
Some five years after Wolf, in answer to a plea made here Term after Term that we overturn its doctrine on applicability of the Weeks exclusionary rule, this Court indicated that such should not be done until the States had "adequate opportunity to adopt or reject the [Weeks] rule." Irvine v. California, supra, at 134. There again it was said:
"Never until June of 1949 did this Court hold the basic search-and-seizure prohibition in any way applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment." Ibid.
And only last Term, after again carefully re-examining the Wolf doctrine in Elkins v. United States, supra, the Court pointed out that "the controlling principles" as to search and seizure and the problem of admissibility "seemed clear" (at p. 212) until the announcement in Wolf "that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not itself require state courts to adopt the exclusionary rule" of the Weeks case. At p. 213. At the same time, the Court pointed out, "the underlying constitutional doctrine which Wolf established . . . that the Federal Constitution . . . prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by state officers" had undermined the "foundation upon which the admissibility of state-seized evidence in a federal trial originally rested . . . ." Ibid. The Court concluded that it was therefore obliged to hold, although it chose the narrower ground on which to do so, that all evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure was inadmissible in a federal court regardless of its source. Today we once again examine Wolf's constitutional documentation of the right to privacy free from unreasonable state intrusion, and, after its dozen years on our books, are led by it to close the only [367 U.S. 643, 655] courtroom door remaining open to evidence secured by official lawlessness in flagrant abuse of that basic right, reserved to all persons as a specific guarantee against that very same unlawful conduct. We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court.
IV.
Since the Fourth Amendment's right of privacy has been declared enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth, it is enforceable against them by the same sanction of exclusion as is used against the Federal Government. Were it otherwise, then just as without the Weeks rule the assurance against unreasonable federal searches and seizures would be "a form of words," valueless and undeserving of mention in a perpetual charter of inestimable human liberties, so too, without that rule the freedom from state invasions of privacy would be so ephemeral and so neatly severed from its conceptual nexus with the freedom from all brutish means of coercing evidence as not to merit this Court's high regard as a freedom "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." At the time that the Court held in Wolf that the Amendment was applicable to the States through the Due Process Clause, the cases of this Court, as we have seen, had steadfastly held that as to federal officers the Fourth Amendment included the exclusion of the evidence seized in violation of its provisions. Even Wolf "stoutly adhered" to that proposition. The right to privacy, when conceded operatively enforceable against the States, was not susceptible of destruction by avulsion of the sanction upon which its protection and enjoyment had always been deemed dependent under the Boyd, Weeks and Silverthorne cases. Therefore, in extending the substantive protections of due process to all constitutionally unreasonable searches - state or federal - it was [367 U.S. 643, 656] logically and constitutionally necessary that the exclusion doctrine - an essential part of the right to privacy - be also insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right newly recognized by the Wolf case. In short, the admission of the new constitutional right by Wolf could not consistently tolerate denial of its most important constitutional privilege, namely, the exclusion of the evidence which an accused had been forced to give by reason of the unlawful seizure. To hold otherwise is to grant the right but in reality to withhold its privilege and enjoyment. Only last year the Court itself recognized that the purpose of the exclusionary rule "is to deter - to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way - by removing the incentive to disregard it." Elkins v. United States, supra, at 217.
Indeed, we are aware of no restraint, similar to that rejected today, conditioning the enforcement of any other basic constitutional right. The right to privacy, no less important than any other right carefully and particularly reserved to the people, would stand in marked contrast to all other rights declared as "basic to a free society." Wolf v. Colorado, supra, at

THAT IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE THAT THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOM OF THE PERSON AND PEOPLE TO BE RESPECTED, PROTECTED AND TO BE DEFENDED IN A FREE DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY.

THAT IT IS THE MOTTO AND PRINCIPLE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION THAT "DEFENDING LIBERTY WHILE PURSUING JUSTICE"

IT IS THEREFORE MY RESPECTFUL SUBMISSION AND CANDID OPINION THAT SINCE ANAS EXPOSE FAILED, NEGLECTED AND REFUSED TO RESPECT AND OBEY ARTICLE 18 (2) OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION, THE EVIDENCE ACT AND THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER OF FREEDOM AND HUMAN RIGHTS BY OBTAINING A VALID COURT ORDER BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION OR THE EXPOSE WAS ALSO NOT DONE IN AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT MANNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW THAT THE ANAS VIDEO EXPOSE IS DEEM ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS A LAWFUL EVIDENTIAL MATERIAL.

THAT IN VIEW ALSO OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE 'WHETHER OR NOT ANY LEGALITY CAN RESULT OUT OF ILLEGAL ACTS OF BOTH PARTIES OR PERSONS AS IN THE CASE OF ANAS AMEREYAW ANAS EXPOSE?"

THAT IT HAS BECOME VERY NECESSARY AND ALSO VERY DICEY IF THE ASSERTION AND CLAIM MADE BY "SIR JOHN" FORMER GENERAL SECRETARY OF NPP THAT "THEY HAVE SOME INVINCIBLE FORCES WORKING FOR THEM AND THEIR RESULT WOULD SOON BE KNOWN?"

THAT ASSUMING AND GRANTING THAT WE ARE LIVING IN THE PHYSICAL AND VISIBLE WORLD AND THERE WAS A CLAIM THAT THERE ARE "SOME INVISIBLE FORCES ALSO WORKING UNKNOWN TO THOSE OF US LIVING REASONABLE IN THE VISIBLE , OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WORLD AND THE LEGAL ISSUE THEREFORE "WHO IS ANAS AND WHAT IS/WAS HIS "MODUS OPERANDI" OF THE ANAS EXPOSE?

IT IS THEREFORE MY HUMBLE AND CANDID SUBMISSION THAT THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL COMMITTEE TO SERIOUSLY WEIGH, ANALYZE AND EVALUATE ALL THESE RELATED LEGAL ISSUES/MATTERS VERY CAREFULLY TO DISMISS THE CASE MADE AGAINST THE JUDGES/MAGISTRATES AND THE JUDICIAL STAFF IMPLICATED BY ANAS SECRET VIDEO TO HELP PROTECT PRIVACY OF HOME, PROPERTY, COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE AS PROVIDED UNDER ARTICLE 18(2) OF GHANA 1992 CONSTITUTION AND UNITED NATIONS CHARTER ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOM.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

GOD BLESS GHANA , AMERICA. UNITED KINGDOM AND UNITED NATIONS.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

BENONY TONY AMEKUDZI, ESQ.

INTERNATIONAL LAWYER/LEGAL CONSULTANT
Kofi 8 years ago

Amekudzi needs to take his medications religiously.

Amekudzi needs to take his medications religiously.
GOLD COAST 8 years ago

Waste of words.

PEACE

Waste of words.

PEACE
northfolk 8 years ago

Amekudzi please come back to Richmond Virginia where you will get free/affordable mess courtesy of Obama care. What happened to your suit against the city of richmond?

Amekudzi please come back to Richmond Virginia where you will get free/affordable mess courtesy of Obama care. What happened to your suit against the city of richmond?
kofi adu 8 years ago

Many more or not they are thieves period

Many more or not they are thieves period
k k j 8 years ago

are you not the same on many occassion you want to trap asamoah because of money

are you not the same on many occassion you want to trap asamoah because of money
nii 8 years ago

Honourable.....we shall be grateful if u could provide evidence of corruption on other 11 eleven justices. Anas has done his bit.... De mantle of investigating to fish out criminal acts, has been bestowed on all. Nothing sto ...
read full comment

Honourable.....we shall be grateful if u could provide evidence of corruption on other 11 eleven justices. Anas has done his bit.... De mantle of investigating to fish out criminal acts, has been bestowed on all. Nothing stops anyone from following anas footsteps.
Kwo 8 years ago

At least they passed this test. Untill they fail a test, let them receive their praises

At least they passed this test. Untill they fail a test, let them receive their praises
Landlord 8 years ago

Is this not Sarah Kwabla's lawyer? He actually has a point, all things considered.

Is this not Sarah Kwabla's lawyer? He actually has a point, all things considered.
KingTampo 8 years ago

The assertions by this lawyer is silly. Where and when was this man awarded a Doctorate ? A Doctoratein what ???

The assertions by this lawyer is silly. Where and when was this man awarded a Doctorate ? A Doctoratein what ???
Analyst 8 years ago

In truth, the so-called incorruptible judges whom Anas is recommending for refusing to take bribes he had offered them, did not do well enough. Giving of bribe or attempting to give bribe is clearly a crime and so must be pun ...
read full comment

In truth, the so-called incorruptible judges whom Anas is recommending for refusing to take bribes he had offered them, did not do well enough. Giving of bribe or attempting to give bribe is clearly a crime and so must be punished wherever it occurs; and a judge should know better. If these 11 judges were really incorruptible, what they should have done was to immediately cause the arrest of anyone who made an attempt to offer them bribe. If they were indeed incorruptible, they would have truncated the "Tigers" mission of Anas by getting his undercover agents arrested. For them to allow the incident of crime in front of them without taking any punitive action, was a display of tolerance for bribery and corruption and this is not good enough.
Baba 8 years ago

Simply means all judges in Ghana are corrupt. This is a lawyer who knows the inside story.

Simply means all judges in Ghana are corrupt. This is a lawyer who knows the inside story.
Kofi 8 years ago

Maurice Ampaw needs to come out with the facts he has. He needs to tell us who of those judges he has been able to bribe. This man is fast becoming a public nuisance.

Maurice Ampaw needs to come out with the facts he has. He needs to tell us who of those judges he has been able to bribe. This man is fast becoming a public nuisance.
Gymnastic 8 years ago

Did Anas just picked the Judges at random or he picked those he had information that they were collecting bribes and sought to have it confirmed that indeed they were collecting?

Did Anas just picked the Judges at random or he picked those he had information that they were collecting bribes and sought to have it confirmed that indeed they were collecting?
KWEKU SOLO, ACCRA 8 years ago

How can a dishonest person be holy? God shall punish them. They must be jailed so that they can serve those in the prisons whom they jailed by their miscarriage of justice.

How can a dishonest person be holy? God shall punish them. They must be jailed so that they can serve those in the prisons whom they jailed by their miscarriage of justice.
George-U.S.A. 8 years ago

Where does it say in the Ghanas Constitution that it is ok for the judges to accept bribe. If such thing exist then that clause of the constitution must be amended immediately; since it is in violation of human rights. If ...
read full comment

Where does it say in the Ghanas Constitution that it is ok for the judges to accept bribe. If such thing exist then that clause of the constitution must be amended immediately; since it is in violation of human rights. If it is ok for the judges to accept bribes then it is also ok not to charge anybody who is changed with bribery alegations in the country. Let the world know that it is in fact the norm of Ghanaians to accept bribery and curruptuon. The nation will then be blacklisted globally for that matter
Stephen a mintah 8 years ago

Even if they ar also corrupt.this will teach them to resist from that act and do the right tins. So they are heros and legend now, their must being in the guiness book of record.

Even if they ar also corrupt.this will teach them to resist from that act and do the right tins. So they are heros and legend now, their must being in the guiness book of record.
Yaw Wiafe 8 years ago

Mr know all. We know many of the judges are corrupt. Some of them are "angels" so let's praise them. May God bless Ghana.

Mr know all. We know many of the judges are corrupt. Some of them are "angels" so let's praise them. May God bless Ghana.
koffi parker 8 years ago

the only way you can prove anyone to be corrupt or armed robber is to be charged,arraigned before the court of law and convicted. without these you are merely making noise,a prove beyond reason doubt someone is corrupt.

the only way you can prove anyone to be corrupt or armed robber is to be charged,arraigned before the court of law and convicted. without these you are merely making noise,a prove beyond reason doubt someone is corrupt.
sid 8 years ago

this. maurice Apaw is always seeking attention. whether he has evidence or not he wants to be heard. I don't believe him

this. maurice Apaw is always seeking attention. whether he has evidence or not he wants to be heard. I don't believe him
Last Don 8 years ago

A very good reason.

A very good reason.
Dawuni 8 years ago

Let us celebrate what we know and wait for the unknown. When a high jumper clears the pole spectators cheer the athlete irrespective of whether he/she will be successful in the next jump. For now, these judges deserve praise.

Let us celebrate what we know and wait for the unknown. When a high jumper clears the pole spectators cheer the athlete irrespective of whether he/she will be successful in the next jump. For now, these judges deserve praise.
back door director 8 years ago

Yes if you pass an exam today and are certified at that point in time you have passed. So is it with the judges.

Yes if you pass an exam today and are certified at that point in time you have passed. So is it with the judges.
kk 8 years ago

what is your interest in this case? just shut up. They may not be holy but for now they have prove truthful to to their oath. just shut up, are u a lawyer or a politician. We all know where you stand. Another corruptible lawy ...
read full comment

what is your interest in this case? just shut up. They may not be holy but for now they have prove truthful to to their oath. just shut up, are u a lawyer or a politician. We all know where you stand. Another corruptible lawyer!
daa 8 years ago

We demand that u provide us with evidence to your allegations, until then they remain mere speculations.One not very good for our compromised system.Gather your facts and evidence and come back well informed and prepared. Unt ...
read full comment

We demand that u provide us with evidence to your allegations, until then they remain mere speculations.One not very good for our compromised system.Gather your facts and evidence and come back well informed and prepared. Until then, shut up.
santrofi 8 years ago

Maurice Ampaw seems to know everything about anything.Are you an angel?

Maurice Ampaw seems to know everything about anything.Are you an angel?
Africa 8 years ago

I have a video of Ghana police officer taken bribe from a driver in kumasi and i was arrested and humiliated for hrs. My crime was not having permit to take videos in public. I want to release the video to whoever is interest ...
read full comment

I have a video of Ghana police officer taken bribe from a driver in kumasi and i was arrested and humiliated for hrs. My crime was not having permit to take videos in public. I want to release the video to whoever is interested. Ghana is the most backwards country in this planet
Kay 8 years ago

U can tell dat again..... Am convinced the empty vessel adage was crafted for this thoughtless head

U can tell dat again..... Am convinced the empty vessel adage was crafted for this thoughtless head
American Boy 8 years ago

This guy should be stripped of his legal license for even attempting to bribe these judges. GBA has to take action against this fool. He is corrupting the system.

This guy should be stripped of his legal license for even attempting to bribe these judges. GBA has to take action against this fool. He is corrupting the system.
Kofi Enimel 8 years ago

No mercy for the criple.

No mercy for the criple.
Thomas. Bahrain 8 years ago

So that 11 judges refusing to tak, bat day need to be question them, because in Ghana tomato sealea wont to tak bribe,may be day hard samething that is why day did not taking it, day have to question tham, right now a nat ...
read full comment

So that 11 judges refusing to tak, bat day need to be question them, because in Ghana tomato sealea wont to tak bribe,may be day hard samething that is why day did not taking it, day have to question tham, right now a nation call Ghana is corrupti
Plasma Kote 8 years ago

Stop covering this guy.

Stop covering this guy.
abraham 8 years ago

let us help in cleaning 'every house' like the Police service,the churches,the government etc.Anas a lot of thanks goes to you if these judges prove to be corrupt.

let us help in cleaning 'every house' like the Police service,the churches,the government etc.Anas a lot of thanks goes to you if these judges prove to be corrupt.
Papa Yaw 8 years ago

So

So
Moses kankane 8 years ago

The chief justice must resign she presided over a corrupt judicially over the years

The chief justice must resign she presided over a corrupt judicially over the years
Banza Yaro 8 years ago

Give due when it's recommended. Do you have some thing against these Judges that you want to bring forward? Maybe some of them screwed you when you tried bribing them. At least, they have passed their 'O' Levels and must be c ...
read full comment

Give due when it's recommended. Do you have some thing against these Judges that you want to bring forward? Maybe some of them screwed you when you tried bribing them. At least, they have passed their 'O' Levels and must be congratulated. Tell me something Ampaw, are you holier than thou? Probably screwing an under aged girl behind the scene until you get caught.
salinsa 8 years ago

this is the kweku baako approach to fame. somebody does or says something then you pick on it to sound smart. what doctor should have done is to give us evidence to the contrary.
the analogy drawn to is too simple. i am real ...
read full comment

this is the kweku baako approach to fame. somebody does or says something then you pick on it to sound smart. what doctor should have done is to give us evidence to the contrary.
the analogy drawn to is too simple. i am really disappointed in the learned lawyer.
if you watch to lawyers who appeared on talking point which included justice emile short they were very circumspect in their contributions & i was highly impressed.
EDUARDO DOMINGO 8 years ago

WHEN A SWIMMER GETS A HEART ATTACK HE IS MOST LIKELY TO BE IN THE WATERS.THESE INNOCENT JUDGES WERE CAUGHT INNOCENT! PERIOD, JUST LIKE THE CRIMINALS WHO HAVE DESTROYED LIVES WERE CAUGHT GUILTY! NOW NO ONE IS TALKING OF THEIR ...
read full comment

WHEN A SWIMMER GETS A HEART ATTACK HE IS MOST LIKELY TO BE IN THE WATERS.THESE INNOCENT JUDGES WERE CAUGHT INNOCENT! PERIOD, JUST LIKE THE CRIMINALS WHO HAVE DESTROYED LIVES WERE CAUGHT GUILTY! NOW NO ONE IS TALKING OF THEIR VICTIMS SUCH IS LIFE IN GHANA!!YOU WILL NOTICE THAT THESE CRIMINAL JUDGES ARE THE BAROMETERS FOR CRIME RATE IN GHANA.IF THEY ARE NOT PUT IN JAIL FOR A LONG TIME THINGS WILL GET WORSE!!
Kwame 8 years ago

MORON!

MORON!
jk 8 years ago

Hi
Truely are u Dr.??

Hi
Truely are u Dr.??
Justin Pwavra Teriwajah 8 years ago

Maurice Ampaw was my classmate from UG Law Faculty to Law School but I am afraid to say that his statement in the above story is rather reckless.

Unless he can prove otherwise, he should shut up and allow the 11 judges in ...
read full comment

Maurice Ampaw was my classmate from UG Law Faculty to Law School but I am afraid to say that his statement in the above story is rather reckless.

Unless he can prove otherwise, he should shut up and allow the 11 judges in Anas' honour list to bask in their good name. I am inclined to believe that the 11 judges deserve that honour unless Maurice can prove otherwise!

Is Maurice trying to say that there is no incorruptible judge in the whole of Ghana's judiciary? The Akans say that every house has its Mensah but that doesn't mean that every house is full of only Mensahs. Anaaa?
Ganja Farmer 8 years ago

They are morally corrupt. Why didn't they report Anas

They are morally corrupt. Why didn't they report Anas

Anas’ 11 incorruptible Judges may not be that holy – Maurice Ampaw

Read Comments .st0{display:none;fill:#14BDD3;} .st1{display:none;} .st2{display:inline;fill:#FC0F0F;} .st3{display:inline;fill:#FFFFFF;} .st4{display:inline;fill:none;stroke:#000000;stroke-width:6;stroke-miterlimit:10;} Comments (55)

Read Comments Comments (55)