Justice Dery sues Anas over video
One of the High Court judges implicated in the bribery scandal in the Judicial Service is contesting the decision of ace investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, to air a video of him allegedly receiving bribe.
Advertisement
Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery is of the view that Anas unlawfully obtained the contents of the audio-visual recording that shows him allegedly receiving bribe.
He also wants Anas stripped of the immunity granted him (Anas) under the Whistle Blowers Act.
A writ of summons filed at the Fast Track High Court Registry Monday morning on his behalf by his lawyer, Nii Kpakpo Somoa Addo, is seeking a declaration that “the continuous leakage of the contents of the audio-visual recording to the public will violate his right to a fair hearing before the Disciplinary Committee of the Judicial Service which is currently investigating the allegations; a declaration that the contents of the audio-visual recording, having been unlawfully obtained by the first defendant, cannot be used in any proceeding whatsoever and however described before any adjudicating authority involving the plaintiff”.
Another relief being required by Justice Dery is a declaration that “any purported immunity granted by the third defendant to the first defendant, its chief executive, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, its privies, agents and assigns is unlawful and of no legal effect; a declaration that the second defendant 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 first defendant”.
Secret recording
The plaintiff is challenging the secret recording of him taking bribe and is thus asking the court to grant a “declaration that the first defendant’s action of secretly recording private discussions with the plaintiff constituted a violation of the plaintiff’s right to privacy”.
The first defendant is Tiger Eye PI, a private investigation company, while the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General have been joined as the second and the third defendants, respectively.
Statement of claim
The plaintiff averred that he was formerly the presiding judge of Fast Track Court 3 which was constituted to determine criminal and civil cases and was thereafter transferred to the High Court, Sekondi.
Other Trending Stories
He said about a week ago he received a call from the Office of the Chief Justice requesting him to report on September 10, 2015.
According to the statement of claim, Mr Justice Dery, on reaching the Chief Justice’s secretariat, was handed a letter dated September 9, 2015 and titled: "Petition in Accordance with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution on allegation of Bribery”.
It averred that he duly perused the said letter and found that an allegation of bribery had been levelled against him by Tiger Eye in respect of a case he presided over titled: The Republic v. Kwame Dzato.
It said the particulars of offence were attached to the petition and that before Mr Justice Dery could respond, Tiger Eye caused to be published the contents of the said recordings.
That, to the plaintiff, was an infringement on his right to a fair hearing and for that reason the court must not permit Tiger Eye to proceed with further airing of the videos.
Unlawful airing and entrapment
It said Anas, the Chief Executive Officer of Tiger Eye, caused to be published on various media platforms transcripts of the audio-visual recordings he (Anas) had unlawfully procured in support of his bribery allegations against the plaintiff.
“The plaintiff avers that Tiger Eye, in conjunction with the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) and the following media houses: Starr FM in Accra, Ghana and the Graphic Communications Group Limited (GCGL), advertised that there would be a public screening of the said audio-visual recording at the Accra International Conference Centre on 22 and 23 September, 2015 at 8 p.m. and this is unlawful.
“The plaintiff contends that if the alleged audio-visual recording truly exists (which is denied), same constitute an entrapment which is intolerable in law and, more particularly in the interest of best practices, frowned upon by the laws of civilised democratic countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom,” it said.
According to the plaintiff, the audio-visual recording had not been subjected to any cross-examination or passed any admissibility test before any court or adjudicating tribunal or judicial committee, as required by law.
“The plaintiff avers that at best the allegations contained in the said audio-visual recording remain unproven and do not amount to proof of the commission of any crime by the plaintiff,” the statement of claim noted.
The plaintiff averred that Tiger Eye had leaked and continued to leak various portions of the said audio-visual recording to the public through various media outlets, including social media platforms.
Judicial scandal
In what can pass as the biggest scandal to hit the Judiciary, 34 judges of the High, Circuit and District courts are alleged to have collected various sums of money from Anas to compromise cases before them.
Advertisement
More than 120 members of the Judicial Service have also been caught on video engaging in various infractions injurious to fair justice delivery.
The Judicial Council is currently investigating the matter.