Indicted High Court judge, Justice Paul Dery, has filed a fresh suit at the Supreme Court seeking seeking to nullify a petition by investigative Journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas, and his Tiger Eye PI, private investigation firm for his removal.
He is also praying the court to declare that the petitions that the Tiger Eye PI filed with President John Mahama for his removal was inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution states that “If the President receives a petition for the removal of Justice of a Superior Court other than the Chief Justice or for the removal of the Chairman of a Regional Tribunal, he shall refer the petition to the Chief Justice, who shall determine whether there is a prima facie case.”
Justice Dery is further praying the court to place a perpetual injunction against any investigative or adjudicative body from determining any issues arising out of the petitions filed Anas.
Justice Dery’s latest suit follows the dismissal of an early suit by the Supreme Court which sought to annul a petition filed by Anas and his Tiger Eye PI for allegedly engaging in corrupt practices as a High Court Judge.
The Supreme Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the content of the petition and the evidence that came with it had been widely publicised, in violation of Article 146(8) of the 1992 Constitution.
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 2nd Defendant’s request to the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs to respond to the petitions filed by the 1st Defendant for the determination of whether there is a prima facie case against the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution as the 1st Defendant lacked the legal capacity to file the said petitions.
4. A declaration that the determination by the 2nd Defendant that there is a prima facie case for the 3rd plaintiff to answer is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution as the 1st Defendant lacked the legal capacity to file the said petition.
5. An order nullifying the petitions filed by the 1st 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 1st Defendants against the plaintiffs.
<<Print>>