The Supreme Court yesterday asked counsel for Justice Dery, Paul Uuter one of the implicated judges in the alleged judicial scandal, to serve the writ of sermons on ace investigative Journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas and his Tiger Eye P I team.
This followed a writ filled at the Supreme Court by counsel for Justice Derry, Nii Kpakpo Addo, praying the court to restrain the Chief Justice and the committee that has been set up to go into the matter, from any further impeachment proceedings against his client, after Anas went ahead to showcase the evidence in the case to the public.
Justice Dery also wanted the Supreme Court to declare that the said petition presented to the President by Anas as null and void on account of the first defendant’s [Anas] contravention of Article 146 of the 1992 constitution, which made the proceedings of the committee unconstitutional.
The defendants in the suit are Tiger Eye PI, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General.
Justice Dery 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.
Consequently, the five-member committee, presided over by Justice Julius Ansah, said their checks at the registry revealed that the first defendant in the matter had not be served.
It, therefore, ordered that the complainant served the first defendant, Anas and his Tiger Eye P I, before the court could further hear the matter.
The case was adjourned sine die (indefinitely) to allow the first defendant in the matter to be served.
The applicant is also urging the court to declare that the conduct of Tiger Eye PI, acting through Anas, in releasing the contents of the petition through publications in the Crusading Guide newspaper, his personal Facebook page, public screening of the audio/visual recordings in support of the petition at the AICC on September 22, 2015, containing the evidence in support of the petition, was in violation of Article 146 (8) of the 1992 Constitution and therefore, unconstitutional.
According to the writ, Article 146 (8), which deals with the removal of a Justice of the Superior Court or a Chairman of the Regional Tribunal, states: “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 the Supreme Court should restrain the defendants, their agents, assigns, servants from any further publishing, printing, reporting, broadcasting, advertising, publicising, distributing and disseminating of the contents of the petition.
By Edem Mensah-Tsotorme