Indicted Justice Paul Dery sues Anas over ‘judicial corruption‘ video
Justice Paul Uuter Dery, one of the High Court judges cited in the judicial bribery video secured by Investigative Journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas, has filed a writ at the High Court demanding certain reliefs.
Advertisement
Justice Dery is one of 12 High Court judges reportedly captured on video allegedly receiving bribes from undercover journalists posing as family and friends of suspects and litigants.
In a writ filed at the Fast Track division of the High Court Monday, Justice Dery is seeking a total of 17 reliefs, including, “A declaration that the 1st Defendant (Tiger Eye PI) obtained the contents of the audio-visual recording unlawfully.”
The Attorney General and the Chief Justice were also sued as defendants in the suit.
22 magistrates and judges who were implicated in the Anas video have been suspended by the Judicial Council.
Justice Dery is, however, the only judge to so far resort to legal action, with his writ further seeking:
“A declaration that the 1st Defendant's act of secretly recording private discussions with the Plaintiff constituted a violation of the Plaintiff's right to privacy;
"A declaration that any purported immunity granted by the 3rd Defendant (Attorney-General) to the 1st Defendant, its Chief Executive Officer, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, its privies, agents and assigns is unlawful and of no effect;
Other Trending Stories
"A declaration that the 2nd Defendant (Chief Justice), her privies, agents, assigns and successors cannot rely on the contents of the illegally or unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings;
"A declaration that the 2nd Defendant (Chief Justice) cannot arrive at a fair determination as to whether a prima facie case has been established against the Plaintiff by relying on the content of the Petition filed by the 1st Defendant;
"An order restraining the 2nd Defendant, her privies, agents and assigns from publishing the contents of the illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual
recordings;
“An order restraining the 1 sl Defendant, its privies and assigns from carrying out their intended public screening of the said illegally and unlawfully procured
audio visual recordings at the Accra International Conference Centre on the 22nd and 23rd of September, 2015;
“An order restraining the 2nd Defendant from relying on the contents of the illegally or unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings;
“A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from carrying out any public screening of the said illegally and
unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings;
“A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from ever publishing or causing to be published the content of the
said illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual recordings through any media platform howsoever described including social media;
“A perpetual injunction restraining the instant 2nd Defendant, her privies, assigns and whosoever from carrying out any form of enquiry however or whatsoever
described against the Plaintiff founded on the contents of the petition or the audio visual recordings submitted by the 1st Defendant.
"General damages against the 1 sl Defendant for the invasion of the plaintiff's privacy."
Advertisement