Another Judge Sues Anas, CJ

Justice Gilbert Ayisi Addo, one of the 12 high court justices on suspension after audio-visual recordings by ace investigative reporter Anas Aremeyaw Anas had emerged that some of them had taken bribes,  has filed a writ at the high court against the reporter, the Chief Justice (CJ) and the Attorney General (AG).

The beleaguered justice, who believes that the audio-visual recordings were procured by fraudulent means with the sole aim of incriminating him, wants a declaration that the recordings and the transcripts were unlawfully obtained and that it constitutes an entrapment which is intolerable in law.

Justice Ayisi Addo, who is the second judge to challenge the CJ after Justice U.P. Dery, says Tiger Eye PI, Anas’ investigative company, is an unregistered company and not licensed to carry out private investigations in Ghana. He has described the purported immunity granted Anas and Tiger Eye PI as unconstitutional and with no legal effect.

In his statement of claim, the plaintiff avers that he is at all material times a justice of the High Court of Ghana at Tamale while Tiger Eye PI is an unregistered company which claims to carry out private investigations.

He stated that the CJ is the head of the judicial arm of the Government of Ghana while the AG is the principal legal advisor to the Government, at whom civil proceedings against the state are directed.

According to Ayisi Addo, he received a letter on September 9, 2015 tiled, ‘Petition in Accordance with Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution on Allegation of Bribery,’ and found out that it had been levelled against him by Tiger Eye PI in a case titled, Hans Vrs Nuhu Abu Hassan, which was attached by the CJ to the alleged particulars of misconduct.

The judge stated that the audio-visual recordings purportedly contained the evidence in support of the allegation of bribery levelled against him by Tiger Eye PI so he filed his response on September 11, 2015.

Particulars Of Fraud
On particulars of fraud, the high court judge maintained that he never demanded any sum of money from Tiger Eye PI, neither did he ever receive any money to influence his conduct in the said case.

He said Anas caused to be published on various media platforms transcripts and audio-visual recordings he had unlawfully procured in support of the said allegations and noted that there was public screening of the recordings at the International Conference Centre in Accra and Global Cinema.

The high court judge also said the audio-visual recordings were meant to prejudice the ongoing investigations as part of the impeachment process by portraying him to be guilty of the offence of bribery before the preliminary investigations were concluded.

Justice Ayisi Addo said Anas fraudulently misrepresented himself as a relative of the defendant in the said case to unlawfully entrap him (judge) and said the recording was pieced together to incriminate him and to petition for his impeachment, which was in bad faith.

Furthermore, he explained that the AG made an announcement that she had purportedly granted Anas and Tiger Eye PI immunity from civil and criminal liability, which was published in the Daily Graphic and carried by the electronic media, but the said immunity is unlawful.

Explaining further, he said the AG also transgressed his right to fair hearing and observed that Anas was not a whistleblower but a person who sought to malign him for personal fame and gain.

The plaintiff also said the CJ went ahead to make a prima facie determination against him and referred the matter to the judicial committee to investigate the matter.

Unlawful Suspension
He asserted that he was consequently served with a notice of suspension from the Office of the President in a letter dated October 2, 2015 which he replied to and noted that the CJ, acting in administrative capacity under Article 146 of the Constitution, could not make any criminal findings against him because she (CJ), in her administrative capacity, was not a court of competent jurisdiction.

The judge noted that the CJ could not make a prima facie finding of bribery and corruption against him in her administrative capacity, adding that the said finding against him based on the petition was contrary to Section 244 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act and therefore unconstitutional. He termed his suspension unconstitutional.

He therefore wants the court to prevent Tiger Eye PI from showing the recordings to stop throwing the case into the public domain as he stands to suffer irreparable damage.

 BY Fidelia Achama

More General News »

This article has 0 comment, leave your comment.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login