Moves by Justice Dery to stop CJ’s Committee shattered

An embattled High Court judge, Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery, Thursday received a major blow from the Supreme Court in his attempt to annul a petition calling for his removal from office for corruption uncovered in the highly publicised investigation into the country’s judicial system by investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas.

The court unanimously dismissed plaintiff’s application that sought to end the work of the committee set up by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, on the premise that the content of the petition and the evidence that came with it had been widely publicised, in violation of Article 146(8) of the 1992 Constitution.

A breach

The five-member Supreme Court panel, chaired by Mr Justice Julius Ansah, however, granted the plaintiff’s reliefs that the publication of the content of the petition and the evidence in support of the petition was unlawful and violated Article 146 (8) of the Constitution.

In the case in which the Supreme Court was faced with the competing right of the requirement to investigate Mr Justice Dery’s alleged misconduct, the protection of his personal reputation, as well the integrity of the Judiciary itself, the court held that publication did not invalidate the petition, which seeks to push impeachment proceedings against Mr Justice Dery and the other High Court judges implicated in the scandal.

Mr Justice Dery’s writ sought to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to declare, among other issues, 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 was, therefore, unconstitutional.

But the court, which also had Mr Justice Kwasi Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice Anthony Benin and Mr Justice Joseph Bawa Akamba as panel members, said the breach notwithstanding, the process should continue, as it was unconscionable to avoid the continuation of the petition because its content had been divulged to others, knowing very well that the committee would not rely on public opinion and media reports but rather what was contained in the petition and the responses provided by the plaintiff.

“It is also a matter of public policy that when allegations of misconduct or misbehaviour are made against a public official, including a judge, it should not be swept under the carpet. The very integrity of the Judiciary is at stake, unless such allegations are unexamined and found to be false,” the court said.

The State’s right

“The plaintiff is entitled to a private and confidential process which had been breached by the public disclosure of the petition and its content, but at the same time the state has the constitutional right to investigate the allegations contained in the petition as required by law,” it said.

It maintained that there were legal remedies available for Mr Justice Dery if he felt slighted by the publication and disclosure of the content of the petition but the state had everything to lose if the process was truncated without investigations.

“The state has every right to demand that judges should live beyond suspicion,” it noted, adding that the plaintiff’s right to fair hearing could not be said to be violated, since the Chief Justice had given him the chance to be heard as to whether or not a prima facie case had been established,” the court said in a judgement read by Mr Justice Benin.

Mr Justice Dery’s petition sought to invoke the powers of 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.

But the court stated that the petition that commenced the impeachment process derived its validity from the Constitution, thus unless a clear intention was expressed, that validity could not be taken away only because there was a procedural infringement.

“The duty behoves the Chief Justice to make a prima facie determination with regard to the validity of the petition and that duty as stipulated in the Constitution prevails until the Chief Justice has performed it.

“There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the Chief Justice from performing that constitutionally imposed duty so far as the President refers the petition to her. Any attempt to stop that process will be subverting the Constitution,” it averred.

Gagging the media

Mr Justice Dery also sought to place a perpetual injunction on some media houses to restrain them from publishing anything concerning his case but the court disagreed.

“It is a permanent gagging order that is being sought or an injunction order in perpetuity. The perpetual injunction will stifle the free speech guaranteed by the Constitution and amount to judicial censorship of press freedom, which is also guaranteed by the Constitution,” the court said.

Mr Justice Dery and Mr Anas were not in court but sent representatives.