Justice Paul Utter Der
The Supreme Court (SC) in a unanimous decision yesterday dismissed the case in which two high court judges cited in the Anas Aremeyaw Anas judicial bribery and corruption scandal are challenging the capacity of the journalist to investigate them.
The five-member panel of justices presided over by Justice Julius Ansah, held that the petition from Anas to President Mahama seeking their (investigated judges’) removal was signed by Anas himself as a citizen, investigative journalist and lawyer.
The judgement read by Justice J. B. Akamba, indicated that the case by the plaintiffs that the said letter on the letterhead of Tiger Eye PI – the company which authenticity they were challenging – is immaterial.
The judge, while indicating that it was with trepidation that the judges sat in judgement of a case concerning their colleagues – Justices Paul Utter Dery and Habib Logoh – noted that the plaintiffs were concerned about the form of the letter and not the content.
He said the plaintiffs embarked on their own investigation about the company at the Registrar General’s Department where the name was different from what was found.
The court again said that at the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT), there were no records of Tiger Eye PI as an entity.
Nevertheless, Justice Akamba stated that the application had been filed and same dismissed.
In their suit the plaintiffs argued that investigative journalist Anas’ Tiger Eye PI firm lacks the capacity to petition President Mahama for their removal from the bench.
They wanted a declaration that the petition that Tiger Eye PI sent to the President of Ghana for their removal as justices of the Superior Court are inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution as Tiger Eye PI lacks the legal capacity to file the said petitions.
The two judges (plaintiffs) also sought a declaration that the president’s referral of the Tiger Eye PI’s petitions 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 the company lacks the legal capacity to file the said petitions.
Lawyers for the two also requested the court to declare that the determination by the Chief Justice that there is a prima facie case for the plaintiffs to answer is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution as Anas lacks the legal capacity to file the said petitions.
The two also wanted 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 1st defendants against the plaintiffs.
By Jeffrey De-Graft Johnson