Another judge amongst the 12 high court judges accused of taking bribes in the latest investigative piece by Anas Aremeyaw Anas, has filed a suit at the Accra Fast Track Court seeking to among others, challenge the legality of the impeachment proceedings against him.
[contextly_sidebar id=”nkH3sbuU1lhhmvgtyxlj6SfLCcX8k8t1″]Justice Mohammed Habib Logoh in a writ filed on Tuesday, is seeking 10 reliefs, key among them being a declaration that the audio-visual recording is unlawful and cannot be used in determining the outcome of the investigations by the judicial council.
Anas Aremeyaw Anas and his Tiger Eye PI Company, has been pushing for an impeachment of all the judges captured in his video.
This was after he petitioned the President in respect of the 12 High Court judges and the Chief Justice in respect of some 22 lower court judges, and about a hundred other judicial service staff.
Although two of the judges have retired with the impeachment process underway, the remaining ten have been raising issues about a breach of the laws in the process.
Justice Logo’s suit is the second after his colleague Justice Peter Dery, also sued Anas Aremeyaw Anas. seeking seventeen reliefs, with the topmost being a declaration that his recording was “unlawful.”
Below are details of the reliefs being sought by Justice Logoh
1. A declaration that the purported audio-visual recordings and transcripts in which the Plaintiff was allegedly captured is unlawful and the same amounts to entrapment;
2. A Declaration that the Directive given through the 3rd Defendant for the 2nd Defendant to use the audio-visual recordings and transcripts as a basis to commence impeachment proceedings against the Plaintiff is null and void and of no legal consequence whatsoever;
3. A Declaration that the action taken by the 2nd Defendant pursuant to the said directive is equally null and void;
4. A Declaration that the 2nd Defendant has no right to violate existing law or legal right of the Plaintiff under any colour;
5. A Declaration that any purported immunity granted by the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant, its Chief Executive Officer (Anas Aremeyaw Anas) is a nullity;
6. A Declaration that the continuous leakage of the contents of the audio-visual recordings and transcripts by the Defendants to media houses and social platforms is in breach of Plaintiff’s rights;
7. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its Chief Executive Officer, workmen, privies, and agents howsoever described from public screening of the said illegal audio-visual recordings;
8. An order or perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from relying on the said audio-visual recordings and transcripts in any proceedings howsoever described.
9. Cost including legal fees and,
10. Any other order(s) that the Honourable Court may deem fit to make.
Credit: Ebenezer Afanyi Dadzie/citifmonline.com/Ghana