Judge sues Tiger Eye
One of the judges implicated in the judicial scandal has challenged the legality of Tiger Eye PI, the private investigative company that filmed him allegedly taking bribes.
Advertisement
Mr Justice Gilbert Ayisi Addo, a High Court judge, also wants the court to award general damages against the company for invasion of his privacy. Joined to the suit is the Chief Justice.
He is further seeking a declaration that Tiger Eye PI has no capacity to file a petition for his removal from office on the grounds that the company is not a registered entity and, therefore, has no legal personality.
This latest suit against Tiger Eye PI, which has already been sued by some implicated judges and a court clerk, comes against the backdrop of allegations by a former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Martin Amidu, that Tiger Eye PI is not a registered entity.
Mr Amidu and owner of Tiger Eye PI , Mr Anas Aremeyaw Anas, who is also an undercover investigator, had, in the past week, been in the news over whether or not the company is registered.
Anas has denied claims by Mr Amidu that Tiger Eye PI is unregistered.
Another implicated judge, Mr Justice Paul Uuter Dery, has filed a multiplicity of suits, both at the High and the Supreme courts, in his bid to secure his freedom.
This latest suit filed on Mr Justice Addo’s behalf by his lawyer, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo of Addo, Addo law firm, is seeking 32 reliefs, including a declaration that the said audio-visual recordings of him were obtained illegally.
‘Strip immunity’
The applicant is asking the court to declare that Tiger Eye PI is not licensed to carry out private investigations under the laws of Ghana. He is also seeking a declaration that the audio-visual recordings and the transcripts thereof were fraudulently and unlawfully obtained by Tiger Eye PI.
“A declaration that the audio-visual recordings and the transcripts thereof constitute an entrapment of the plaintiff, which is intolerable in law. “A declaration that the audio-visual recordings and the transcripts thereof constitute a breach and transgress all rules of justice, fair play and equity,” the applicant prayed.
According to him, the allegations contained in the audio-visual recordings and the transcripts accompanying them remained unproven and did not amount to proof of the commission of any crime by the plaintiff.
Whistleblower
Mr Justice Addo also wants the court to hold that Tiger Eye PI is not a whistleblower per the definition of the law.
He is seeking a further declaration from the court that Tiger Eye PI “carefully and maliciously pieced together the audio-visual recordings and the transcripts thereof in a manner to incriminate the plaintiff on the allegations of bribery and corruption”.
“A declaration that the 2nd defendant, acting in her administrative capacity under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, cannot make a prima facie finding of bribery and corruption against the plaintiff, contrary to Section 244 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, (1960), Act 29 and Rule 2 of the CCJMG,” he said.
According to the plaintiff, the Chief Justice was under a constitutional obligation only to determine a prima facie case against him based solely on the allegations contained in the petition filed by Tiger Eye PI.
Other reliefs being sought by the plaintiff include “a declaration that the ruling attached to the 2nd defendant’s letter dated October 5, 2015, addressed to the plaintiff making a prima facie finding against the plaintiff on alleged acts of misbehaviour arising out of alleged ex parte discussions with one party on a case pending before him, contrary to Rule 3(7) and 4(A) of the CCJMG” is wrong, unconstitutional, null and void on account of the fact that the said allegations were never contained in the petition filed by the 1st defendant.
Prima facie findings
On the issue of prima facie finding made against him, the plaintiff is asking for a declaration that the Chief Justice breached the principle of audi alteram partem when she made prima facie findings on the allegations of ex-parte discussions with one party on any case pending before him and without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.
He also desires the court to give an order revoking his suspension by the President of the Republic of Ghana on account of the prima facie findings made by the Chief Justice.
The plaintiff wants an order restraining the Chief Justice from relying on what he termed “contents of the illegally or unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings”. Mr Justice Addo is also seeking a perpetual injunction restraining Tiger Eye PI and its agents from carrying out any public screening of the said illegally and unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings.
The plaintiff is also seeking an order perpetually restraining the Chief Justice and her agents from carrying out any form of inquiry based on the contents of the petition or the audio-visual recordings submitted by Tiger Eye PI.
