Judicial corruption: Justice Dery sues Anas again

Indicted High Court judge, Justice Paul Dery, has filed a fresh suit at the Supreme Court seeking to nullify a petition by investigative Journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas, and his Tiger Eye PI, private investigation firm for his removal.

 Justice Paul Dery wants the petition calling on the Chief Justice to impeach 32 lower and high court judges over allegations of bribery dismissed.

This suit follows another one he had filed earlier, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on Thursday.

[contextly_sidebar id=”3ly6Hnoqpwqm6CxfJdaVPP1PINm4uI9m”]In their ruling, the five-member panel of justices, chaired by Justice Julius Ansah, indicated that despite the breach of the provision of confidentiality clause by the petitioner [Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye PI] for the removal of the justices, there is no provision for annulment of the process as a remedy to the matter.

But in his new suit filed together with Justice Mustapha Habib Logoh and Gilbert Ayisi Addo,  the trio argue that investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas’ Tiger Eye PI firm lacks the capacity to petition the President for their removal from the bench.

Reliefs Justice Paul Dery is seeking in his new suit:

1.A declaration that the petitions that the Tigereye PI filed with the President of Ghana for the removal of the Plaintiffs as Justices of the Superior Court are inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution as Tigereye PI lacked legal capacity to file the said petitions.

2. A declaration that the President’s referrals of the Tigereye PI’s petition to the Chief Justice to determine whether there is a prima facie case against the Plaintiffs are inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution as Tigereye PI lacked legal capacity to file the said petitions.
3. A declaration that the Chief Justice’s request to the 2^nd Defendant’s request to the 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs to respond to the petitions filed by the 1^st Defendant for the determination of whether there is a prima facie case against the 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution as the 1^st Defendant lacked the legal capacity to file the said petitions.
4. A declaration that the determination by the 2^nd Defendant that there is a prima facie case for the 3^rd plaintiff to answer is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution as the 1^st Defendant lacked the legal capacity to file the said petition.
5. An order nullifying the petitions filed by the 1^st Defendant with the President of Ghana against the plaintiffs as it had no legal capacity to file the said petitions.
6. An order of perpetual injunction against any investigative or adjudicative body howsoever or whatsoever described from determining any issues arising out of the petitions filed by the 1^st Defendants against the plaintiffs.

–

By: citifmonnline.com/Ghana