Days after anti-corruption crusader, Martin Amidu alleged that investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas’ Tiger Eye PI investigative organisation is not legally registered, lawyer for one of the accused High Court judges implicated in the judicial corruption scandal, Captain Nkrabeah Effah-Dartey, has taken a similar position, describing the journalist and his team as villains.
[contextly_sidebar id=”odx4kuDqerkrBTX1lF0HvKLvrVmqEviB”]The lawyer argues that Anas and his investigative team should be condemned for “tempting” judges to take bribes.
“Who are you Tiger Eye PI? Are you God to go round tempting judges and collecting information to go and screen it to the public? Personally I think Anas and his Tiger Eye should be condemned. They are not heroes, they are villains who are trying to destroy the judiciary of this country,” the agitated lawyer complained.
Anas’ modus operandi for his his latest work on perceived widespread corruption in the judiciary, which has led to the suspension and subsequent investigation of over 30 judges, has been described as unethical.
Lawyer Effah-Dartey’s client, His Lordship Justice Gilbert Ayisi Addo, who was suspended for his role in the scandal, has filed a suit at the Supreme Court seeking to nullify his suspension.
Effah Dartey in an interview on Eyewitness News sought to justify the decision to sue Anas, saying the methods deployed by the journalist to expose the scandal were illegal.
Critiquing Anas’ work, Effah Dartey said : “If you see a judge collecting bribe, you owe a duty to report him to the police but that does not mean you must pretend that you are a plaintiff in a case that is coming before a judge and then you voluntarily offer the judge money and in the process you will be filming the whole process and then you come out and to show it to the world that a judge is collecting bribe. That is not allowed by the law. If you want to procure evidence about judges taking bribes, you must find a legal way of doing so.”
Justice Ayisi Addo is seeking the following reliefs in his suit
1. A declaration that the 1st Defendant has no capacity to file a petition for his removal from office owing to the fact that the 1st Defendant is not a registered entity and therefore has no legal personality.
2. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is not licensed to carry out private investigations under the laws of Ghana.
3. A declaration that the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof were fraudulently and unlawfully obtained by the 1st Defendant.
4. A declaration that the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof constitute an entrapment of the Plaintiff which is intolerable in law.
5. A declaration that the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof constitute a breach and transgress all rules of justice, fair play and equity.
6. A declaration that the allegations contained in the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof remain unproven and do not amount to proof of the commission of any crime by the Plaintiff.
7. A declaration that the public screening of the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof was to prejudice the case of the Plaintiff on the allegations of bribery and corruption leveled against him by the 1st Defendant.
8. A declaration that the public screening of the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof was unlawful and unconstitutional.
9. A declaration that any purported immunity granted by the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant, its Chief Executive Officer, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, its privies, agents and assigns is unlawful and of no effect.
10. A declaration that the confidentiality attached to impeachment proceedings of Justices of the Superior Court which extends to documents and other relevant materials including audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof has been breached by the Defendants.
11. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is not a whistle blower under the definition of the law.
12. A declaration that the 1st Defendant’s act of secretly recording the Plaintiff constitutes a violation of the Plaintiff’s right to privacy and therefore unlawful and unconstitutional.
13. A declaration that the 1st Defendant carefully and maliciously pieced together the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof in a manner to incriminate the Plaintiff on the allegations of bribery and corruption.
14. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant acting in her administrative capacity under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution is not a court of competent jurisdiction.
15. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant acting in her administrative capacity under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution cannot make a prima facie finding of bribery and corruption against the Plaintiff contrary to section 244 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, (1960), Act 29 and Rule 2 of the CCJMG.
16. A declaration that the prima facie findings made against the Plaintiff by the 2nd Defendant on account of the petition filed by the 1st Defendant is unlawful and unconstitutional.
17. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant is under a constitutional obligation only to determine a prima facie case against the Plaintiff based solely on the allegations contained in the petition filed by the 1st Defendant.
18. A declaration that the ruling attached to the 2nd Defendant’s letter dated 5th October, 2015, addressed to the Plaintiff making a prima facie finding against the Plaintiff on alleged acts of misbehavior arising out of alleged “ex parte discussions with one party on a case pending before him contrary to Rule 3(7) and 4(A) of the CCJMG” is wrong, unconstitutional, null and void on account of the fact that the said allegations were never contained in the petition filed by the 1st Defendant.
19. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant breached the principle of audi alteram partem when she made prima facie findings on the allegations of ex parte discussions with court personnel on any case pending before him without granting the Plaintiff prior notice of the charge and an opportunity to be heard in his defence.
20. A declaration that the purported suspension of the Plaintiff by the President of the Republic of Ghana on account of the prima facie findings made by the 2nd Defendant is null and void.
21. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant breached the principle of audi alteram partem when she made prima facie findings on the allegations of ex parte discussions with one party on any case pending before him and without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.
22. An order revoking the suspension of the Plaintiff by the President of the Republic of Ghana on account of the prima facie findings made by the 2nd Defendant.
23. An order restraining the 2nd Defendant, her privies, agents and assigns from publishing the contents of the illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual recordings.
24. An order prohibiting the 1st Defendant, as the primary custodian and copyright holder to the audio visual recordings, its agents, privies and assigns from releasing same to the international media and various social media outlets.
25. An order restraining the 2nd Defendant from relying on the contents of the illegally or unlawfully procured audio visual recordings.
26. A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from carrying out any public screening of the said illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual recordings.
27. A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from ever publishing or causing to be published the content of the said illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual recordings through any media platform howsoever described including social media.
28. A perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant, her privies, assigns and whosoever from carrying out any form of enquiry however or whatsoever described against the Plaintiff founded on the contents of the Petition or the audio visual recordings submitted by the 1st Defendant.
29. A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from ever publishing or causing to be published the content of the said illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual recordings through any media platform howsoever described including social media.
30. General damages against the 1st Defendant for the invasion of the Plaintiff’s privacy.
31. Cost including legal fees.
32. Any other order (s) that the Honourable Court may deem fit to make.
–
By: Marian Ansah/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @EfeAnsah