A-G ordered to respond to Dery’s suit

Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong, Minister of Justice and Attorney Genera (1)The Supreme Court has given a seven-day ultimatum to the Attorney General to file its statement of case in response to a suit filed a by Justice Paul Dery.

Justice Dery is asking the court to declare as null and void, a petition from the President to have him investigated over some allegations of corruption.

The ultimatum given yesterday, follows a plea by the State Attorney, Grace Aiwoo, for ample time to be given to the Attorney-General (AG) to file its statement of case in response to the suit before the court.

She explained that the inability of the A-G to respond to the suit was due to some challenges at the Registry of the court.

Justice Dery is also invoking the original jurisdiction of the court to prohibit a judge of the high court from sitting on a case involving him.

Giving the order, Justice Julius Ansah, who chaired the panel, indicated that it had been the trend of the AG to always pray for adjournment in matters which should have been dealt with expeditiously.

He therefore, ordered them to file the statement of case within seven days and consequently adjourned sitting sine dine (indefinitely) pending the filing of the response.

Justice Derry is facing an impeachment process established by the Chief Justice following an expose’ in the judiciary by ace investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas.

Justice Dery, one of 12 High Court Judges seen in Anas’ undercover video, allegedly taking bribe, took his case to the Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that the petition filed by Anas Aremeyaw Anas for his removal was null and void.

According to the facts of the case filed before the court, the publication of Tiger Eye’s petition to the President in the media, as well as the public screening at the Accra International Conference Centre (AICC) of the evidence (video), and the Judicial Council’s naming of the Judges involved in the “Bribery Scandal” in a press release on September 11, 2015, contravened Article 146 (8) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore unconstitutional.

It further stated that article 146 (8) which deals with the removal of a Justice states that, “All proceedings under this article shall be held in camera, and the Justice or Chairman against whom the petition is made is entitled to be heard in his defence by himself or by a lawyer or other expert of his choice.” It said.

Justice Dery, therefore, wants the court to declare that all proceedings initiated by the Chief Justice arising out of the contents of the petition were null and void.

He is seeking 10 reliefs from the Supreme Court including a perpetual injunction against any adjudicating body from determining any issues arising out of the contents of the petition.

According to him, the Supreme Court should restrain the defendants, their agents, assigns, servants, from any further publishing, printing, reporting, broadcasting, advertising, publicising, distributing and disseminating the contents of the petition.

email
Print Friendly

Leave a Comment