Justice Dery sues CJ again; says she lacked jurisdiction

General News of Wednesday, 22 February 2017

Source: citifmonline.com

2017-02-22

Indicted Justice DeryIndicted High Court Judge, Paul Dery

Indicted High Court Judge, Paul Dery has filed a new lawsuit against the Chief Justice, Georgina Theodora Woode and two others over the Judicial Corruption scandal.

He is seeking, among a litany of reliefs, a declaration that the Chief Justice lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the petition for his removal, presented to then-President John Mahama, based on the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

Paul Dery is also seeking an order nullifying the petition as he argues it is vitiated by fraud perpetrated by the Defendants.

He also wants the courts to guarantee full insurance or security on legal fees and cost incurred during his legal battles.

Two others mentioned as parties to the lawsuit are the head of the Tiger Eye PI, Anas Aremeyaw Anas and the Attorney General.

The Paul Dery’s legal travails begun after the screening of Anas Aremeyaw Anas’ judicial bribery scandal video and press releases by the Judicial Council on the matter announcing the suspension of the judges involved.

Paul Dery was one of the twelve High Court justices indicted in the video and has since been using the court to discredit the work by the investigative journalist and also to clear his name.

In his suit, he also maintains that Anas via Tiger Eye PI did not have the capacity to carry out private investigations into the perceived corruption in the Judicial Service as he had not obtained any licence and/or permit from the Minister of Interior in accordance with the provisions of the Police Service Act, 1970 (Act 350) and the Police Service (Private Security Organizations) Regulations, 1992 (L.I. 1571).

Find below the reliefs Paul Dery is seeking in his new suit

• A declaration that pursuant to Article 19(1) of the 1992 Constitution the 2nd Defendant, in exercise of her functions under Article 146(3) & (4) of the Constitution, lacks jurisdiction to enquire into any petition that alleges the commission of criminal offences under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), or any penal statute for that matter.

• A declaration that the 2nd Defendant lacks jurisdiction to enquire into the 1st Defendant’s petition in purported exercise of her functions under Article 146(3) & (4) of the 1992 Constitution since the said petition alleges the commission of the offence of corruption under section 239(1) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

• A declaration that the Committee provided for under Article 146(4) of the 1992 Constitution to enquire into any petition pursuant to Article 146(5) of the Constitution, lacks jurisdiction to enquire into any petition if the petition alleges the commission of a criminal offence under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), or any penal statute for that matter.

• A declaration that the 1st Defendant, either by himself, his agents, servants, workmen, or Tiger Eye PI lacks capacity to carry out private investigations into what he claims to be perceived corruption in the Judicial Service as he purported to have done as he had not obtained any licence and/or permit from the Minister of Interior in accordance with the provisions of the Police Service Act, 1970 (Act 350) and the Police Service (Private Security Organizations) Regulations, 1992 (L.I. 1571).

• A declaration that the evidence purportedly procured by the 1st Defendant, either by himself, his agents, servants, workmen or Tiger Eye PI arising out of the purported investigations into the perceived corruption in the Judicial Service is inadmissible for the purposes of any impeachment proceedings and any other further investigative purposes whatsoever or howsoever against the Plaintiff for want of capacity.

• A declaration that the purported investigations by the 1st Defendant either by himself, his agents, servants, workmen, or Tiger Eye PI, is in violation of the Plaintiff’s fundamental human right to privacy guaranteed by Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and Articles 12 (1) and 18 (2) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.

• A declaration that the 1st Defendant either by himself, his agents, servants or workmen or Tiger Eye PI procured and processed the personal data of the Plaintiff in violation of the Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843).

• A declaration that the evidence unlawfully procured to support the petition to the President for the removal of the Plaintiff as a Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature, having been procured in violation of the fundamental human right of the Plaintiff to privacy, is inadmissible in any disciplinary proceedings or any investigations whatsoever and howsoever described involving the Plaintiff.

• A declaration that the personal data of the Plaintiff that the 1st Defendant either by himself, his agents, servants or workmen or Tiger Eye PI unlawfully obtained is inadmissible in evidence in any disciplinary and investigative proceedings involving the Plaintiff.

• A declaration that the President and the 2nd Defendant by relying on the evidence unlawfully procured in violation of the Plaintiff’s fundamental human right to privacy have failed to protect the Plaintiff’s said right to privacy in breach of Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and Articles 12 (1) and 18(2) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.

• A declaration that Tiger Eye PI and the 1st Defendant are not entitled to any immunity for violating the Constitution and statutes of the Republic of Ghana.

• A declaration that Tiger Eye PI and the 1st Defendant are not entitled to any immunity for violating the fundamental human right of the Plaintiff to privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.

• A declaration that the immunity purportedly granted by the 3rd Defendant to Tiger Eye PI and the 1st Defendant for violating the Constitution and statutes of the Republic of Ghana is unconstitutional and thus null and void.

• A declaration that the immunity purportedly granted by the 3rd Defendant to Tiger Eye PI and the 1st Defendant for violating the fundamental human right of the Plaintiff to privacy is unconstitutional and thus null and void.

• A declaration that the disciplinary proceedings instituted by the President and the 2nd Defendant for the purpose of the removal of the Plaintiff as a Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature based on the evidence unlawfully procured by the 1st Defendant either by himself, his agents, servants, workmen or Tiger Eye PI in violation of the Plaintiff’s fundamental human right to privacy constitute an attempt to unlawfully and unfairly deprive the Plaintiff of his right to work as guaranteed by Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Article 15 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights; and Articles 12(1); 24 and 33(5) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.

• A declaration that the 2nd Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s fundamental human right to administrative justice guaranteed by Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution as a result of the ex parte communications the 2nd Defendant had with the 1st Defendant prior to the submission of the petition to the President.

• An order nullifying the petition for want of capacity of the 1st Defendant either by himself, his agents, servants, workmen or Tiger Eye PI to carry out the purported investigations and the resultant evidence procured in support of the petition.

• An order nullifying the petition as the 1st Defendant either by himself, his agents, servants, workmen or Tiger Eye PI violated the Plaintiff’s fundamental human right to privacy in procuring the evidence in support of the petition.

• An order nullifying the petition as same is vitiated by fraud perpetuated by the Defendants.

• Costs including legal fees on full indemnity basis.

• Any other order(s) this Honourable Court may deem appropriate to make.

Comments