Justice Dery seeks disqualification of judge over claims of bias
One of the High Court Judges implicated in the judicial bribery scandal, Justice Paul Uuter Dery, wants the Supreme Court to prohibit his senior colleague from hearing two cases before her.
Justice Dery has accused Mrs Justice Gertrude Torkonoo of bias and, therefore, wants the court to bar her from further sitting on his case.
Justice Dery sued Tiger Eye P I, a private investigative company owned by ace investigator, Anas Aremeyaw Anas; the Accra International Conference Centre (AICC); the Chief Justice; and the Attorney-General over moves to show a video showing him taking a bribe to influence a case before him.
The case against the AICC was rendered moot because it proceeded to show the video on September 22 and 23, 2015.
Its action prompted the lawyer for Justice Dery, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo, to file a motion for contempt, which sought to pray the court to jail some directors of the AICC.
The court, however, dismissed the contempt motion but the presiding judge’s decision has necessitated the current application, which is invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Further reliefs
The applicant also wants the court to hold that Mrs Justice Torkornoo, Justice of the Court of Appeal, sitting as an additional High Court Judge, exhibited bias or a real likelihood of bias when she dismissed his motion on Notice for Committal for Contempt in suit titled “The Republic v. Anas Aremeyaw Anas & 4 Ors with Suit Number AP 238/2015 without first giving the Applicant a hearing.”
He further wants the Supreme Court to declare that Mrs Justice Torkonoo breached the audi alteram partem principle of natural justice when she, in league with the registrar of the court, proceeded to fix the “applicant’s Motion on Notice for Committal for Contempt in suit titled The Republic v. Anas Aremeyaw Anas & 4 Ors with Suit Number AP 238/2015 for hearing on September 28 and 29, 2015 without giving the applicant prior notice even though the application in question was originally scheduled by the first Interested party to be heard on October 12, 2015.”
The first interested party in the case is the Registrar of the High Court.
Justice Dery is also urging the court to declare that Mrs Justice Torkornoo flouted the principle of natural justice when she heard and dismissed his Motion on Notice for Committal for Contempt without hearing him.
The application to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the court, which was filed pursuant to Article 132 of the 1992 Constitution, Section 5 of the Courts Act, 1993, Act 459 and Rule 61 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996, (C.I. 16) said the instant action also raised the issue as to whether or not the discretionary power vested in the trial court judge was exercised in accordance with Article 296 of the Constitution.
Background
Meanwhile, the hearing of an application filed at the Supreme Court by Mr Justice Dery has been adjourned sine die to enable court bailiffs to serve court processes on parties.
Justice Dery is asking the Supreme Court to dismiss a petition filed by Tiger Eye P I, which is calling for his removal for allegedly engaging in a corrupt practice.
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.
His writ is seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to declare, among others, 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, was unconstitutional.
Stopping Impeachment
The applicant, through his lawyer, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo of Addo, Addo & Co., a legal firm, is also praying the Supreme 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 Supreme Court.
He has also argued that the content of the video was procured illegally and for that reason he could not be impeached based on the content.
