Supreme Court throws out dismissed judges
The Supreme Court yesterday unanimously dismissed a suit challenging the capacity of Tiger Eye Pl, a private investigating firm of ace investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, to file a petition which eventually led to the removal of three judges as justices of the Superior Court.
Advertisement
The three High Court judges are Mustapha Habib Logoh, Paul Uuter Dery and Gilbert Ayisi Addo.
Last year, they dragged Tiger Eye P I, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General to court in February 2016 seeking a declaration that the petitions that the Tiger Eye 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 because Tiger Eye PI lacked legal capacity to file the said petitions asking for their removal.
They also sought a declaration that the President’s referrals of the Tiger Eye PI’s petition to the Chief Justice to determine whether there was a prima facie case against them were inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 146 (3) of the 1992 Constitution as Tiger Eye P I lacked legal capacity to file the said petitions.
But Anas’ lawyer, Mr Kissi Agyebeng, filed a response and said the suit represented a classic case of a solution in search of a problem.
According to him, the plaintiffs needlessly invoked the jurisdiction of the court by “dreaming up non-existent and totally inapplicable constitutional and corporate jurisprudence masquerading as apparent legal problems in, yet again, a futile bid to invalidate a petition lodged against them for their removal as justices of the superior court of the Republic of Ghana for stated misbehaviour in accordance with article 146 of the Constitution, 1992.”
The Decision
Dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Julius Ansah, with Justices Anin Yeboah, P. Baffoe-Bonnie, A.A. Bennin and J. B. Akamba, held that Anas signed the petition asking for the removal of the plaintiffs and others for taking bribes to influence their work.
The court held that although, the petition was on the letterhead of Tiger Eye P I, it was immaterial because the content of the petition was what mattered.
The court looked at whether or not the petition was filed by an identifiable petitioner and said so long as it was signed by Anas, an identifiable being, the petition was valid.
Dismissing the writ, the court concluded that “no useful purpose will be served to look at other issues.”
New Suit
Meanwhile, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo, has indicated his clients’ intention to file a fresh suit against Anas.
He also indicated his intention to go to the ECOWAS Court for the enforcement of the human rights of the applicants pursuant to articles 9 (4) and 10 (D) of the Community Court of Justice Protocol and Supplementary Protocol.
He said they would be seeking a declaration that every individual within the territorial jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana was entitled to the internationally recognised human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.
They are also seeking a declaration that the government of the Republic of Ghana has a duty to respect and uphold and also ensure that every person within the territorial jurisdiction of the Republic of Ghana respects and upholds the internationally recognised human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.
The dismissed justices are also seeking a declaration that the government of the Republic of Ghana has violated and continues to violate the Applicants’ rights to fair trial and administrative justice, enshrined in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; 2 (3)(b); 5(2); and 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and Article 7(1)(a) of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, is also being sought by the plaintiffs.