<<Print>>

One of the High Court judges seen in Anas’ video allegedly taking bribe, Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery, has filed contempt charges against the Accra International Conference Centre (AICC) and United Television (UTV).

Justice Dery wants the manager of the AICC, Mr Kofi Appiah, and the station manager of UTV committed to prison for contempt of court pursuant to Oder 50 R1 (2) of C.I. 47.

According to Graphic Online’s court reporter, Mabel Aku Baneseh, Justice Dery’s counsel, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo, has filed a motion on notice for committal of contempt.

According to our reporter, Justice Dery claims that the defendants were aware that he had filed a suit prohibiting Tigereye PI from prejudicing his case by going ahead to screen the alleged audio visual recordings.

In an affidavit in support of his motion, Justice Dery avers that even though the AICC had been served with the said Writ on the 16th of September, 2015 prohibiting them from making their facility available to Tigereye PI and its Media Partner, the AICC went ahead,” disregarding, undermining and prejudicing the authority of the court.”

For UTV, Justice Dery claims that on the 22nd of September, 2015, at around 10pm, the station aired contents of the audio visual recording on its television station.

These actions of the respondents according to Justice Dery, were calculated to bring the authority and administration of the law into “disrespect, disregard and to interfere with the course of justice.”

He argues that the respondents had knowledge of the pendency of his actions before the court and therefore the public screening of the alleged audio visual recordings on the 22nd of September, 2015, sought to prejudice the fair trial of the case and that singular act amounts to contempt of Court.

The conduct of the respondents he argues was in “bad faith, was malicious and was prejudicial to the determination of the case before the court" and under the circumstances, he was praying that the obvious disregard of the court amounts to nothing more than contempt of court of which the respondents ought to be convicted and punished.

Below is a copy of the affidavit in support of the motion

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE FOR COMMITTAL FOR CONTEMPT PURSUANT TO ORDER 50 R1 (2) OF C.I. 47

I, His Lordship, Paul Uuter Dery of Unnumbered House, Spintex Road, Accra, do hereby make oath and say as follows:

That I am the Applicant herein and the deponent hereto.

That I depose to this affidavit in support referring to facts and matters that are either within my personal knowledge and belief or which are based on information provided to me by third parties, which I verily believe to be true.

That the 1st Respondent is the Manager of the Accra International Conference Centre, Osu, Accra.

That the 2nd Respondent is the Station Manager of the United Television Station in Accra.

That on the 16th of September, 2015, I caused a Writ of Summons to be issued from the Registry of this Honourable Court titled His Lordship Justice Paul Uuter Dery v. 1. The Director of Estates and General Services Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2. The Chief Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 3. The Manager, Accra International Conference Centre 4. The Attorney General, prohibiting the Defendants therein from prejudicing my case by making their Accra International Conference Centre facility available to Tigereyepi and its Media Partners. (Please, find attached and exhibited as “PUD 1” a copy of the said suit).

That the 1st Respondent herein is the 3rd Defendant in the above mentioned Suit.

That the Defendants in the said Suit including the Respondent herein were served with the said Writ on the 16th of September, 2015. (Please, find attached and exhibited as “PUD2” a copy of the proof of service).

That on the 22nd of September, 2015, I also filed an Interlocutory Injunction against the Defendants in the above mentioned suit seeking to restrain the Defendants from making the Accra International Conference Centre available to Tigereyepi and its Media Partners for the screening of the alleged audio visual recordings. (Please, find attached and exhibited as “PUD3” a copy of the Interlocutory Injunction).

That the 1st Respondent herein, who is the 3rd Defendant in the said suit was served with the said Interlocutory Injunction on the 22nd of September, 2015. (Please, find attached and exhibited as “PUD4” a copy of the proof of service).

That notwithstanding, the 1st Respondent having been served with the said Interlocutory Injunction, the 1st Respondent went ahead to make the Accra International Conference Centre available to Tigereyepi and its Media Partners, blatantly disregarding, undermining and prejudicing the authority of this Honourable Court.

That the 2nd Respondent was issued a letter dated the 15th of September , 2015 and received by one Rosemond Kankam on the 16th of September, 2015 notifying it of the pending suit against Tigereye PI, Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana and the Attorney General. (Please, find attached and exhibited as “PUD5” a copy of the said letter).

That even after receiving the letter dated the 15th of September, 2015, the 2nd Respondent on the 22nd of September, 2015, at around 10 pm aired contents of the audio visual recording on its television station, United Television.

That the Respondents have knowledge of the pendency of my actions before the court.

That the Respondents’ conduct is calculated to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect and disregard and to interfere with the course of justice.

That the 1st Respondent’s act of making the Accra International Conference Centre available to Tigereyepi and its Media Partners for the public screening of the alleged audio visual recordings on the 22nd of September, 2015, seeks to prejudice the fair trial of the case and that singular act amounts to contempt of Court.

That the 2nd Respondent’s act of telecasting the contents of the audio visual recording to the public seeks to prejudice the fair trial of the case and that singular act mounts to contempt of Court.

That the Respondents’ conduct is in bad faith, is malicious and is prejudicial to the determination of the case before the court.

In the circumstances, I pray that this obvious disregard to the Court amounts to nothing more than contempt of Court of which the Respondents ought to be convicted and punished.