Justice Dery files writ at Supreme court; want Anas' petition declared null and void

Enoch Darfah Frimpong Sep - 23 - 2015 , 11:32 3 minutes read

One of the High Court judges seen in Anas’ video allegedly taking bribe, Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery has taken his case to the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the petition filed by Anas Aremeyaw Anas for his removal was null and void.

He is arguing 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.

Article 146 (8) which deals with removal of a Justice of the Superior Court or a Chairman of the Regional Tribunal states that, "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, Justice Dery therefore wants the apex court to declare that all proceedings initiated by the Chief Justice arising out of the contents of the Petition was null and void.

According to Graphic Online’s court reporter, Mabel Aku Baneseh, counsel for Justice Dery, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo of the law firm Addo, Addo (Legal Attorneys) filed the writ invoking the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court between himself [Dery] versus Tiger Eye PI, the Chief Justice, the Attorney General on Wednesday morning.

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.

According to him, the Supreme Court should restrain the defendants, their agents, assigns, servants, from any further publishing, printing, reporting, broadcasting, advertising, publicizing, distributing and disseminating the contents of the petition.

Below are the reliefs being sought by Justice Dery

A declaration that the 1st Defendant’s publication of its Petition to the President in the media contravened Article 146 (8) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore unconstitutional.

A declaration that the conduct of the 1st Defendant acting through its Chief Executive Officer and Acting Editor of the Crusading Guide Newspaper, Anas Aremeyaw 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 at the Accra International Conference Centre on the 22nd of September, 2015, containing the evidence in support of the Petition, is in violation of Article 146(8) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore unconstitutional.

A declaration that the 2nd Defendant acting through the Judicial Secretary’s Press Release dated 11th September, 2015, naming the Plaintiff as one of the twelve (12) High Court Judges involved in the “Bribery Scandal” is in contravention of Article 146 (8) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore unconstitutional.

A declaration that the Petition presented to the President by the 1st Defendant is null and void on account of the 1st Defendant’s contravention of Article 146(8) of the 1992 Constitution.

A declaration that all proceedings however and whatsoever described arising out of the contents of the Petition be declared null and void.

A perpetual injunction against any adjudicating body however or whatsoever described from determining any issues arising out of the contents of the Petition.

A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, assigns, servants, from any further publishing, printing, reporting, broadcasting, advertising, publicizing, distributing and disseminating the contents of the petition.

A perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant, her agents, assigns, servants and successors from any further impeachment proceedings against the Plaintiff.

An order restraining any adjudicating body howsoever described from determining any issues arising out of the content of the said Petition filed by the 1st Defendant during the pendency of the instant suit before the Supreme Court.