Gabriel Achana was caught on video taking money to direct ace investigator Anas’s Tiger Eye P I team to the offices and homes of judges for the payment of bribes to influence cases.
He was sometime in September 2015, ordered to appear before a disciplinary committee set up by the Judicial Council to investigate the scandal.
Anas has been appearing before the committee hooded to protect his identity, but Gabriel wants the Human Rights Division of the High Court to direct Anas and two other defendants to remove their face masks each time they would appear before the committee.
According to the plaintiff, he was shown video recordings of him interacting with other people whose faces were not shown, although, he recalled seeing the faces of the persons during his interaction with them.
He said it would only be fair for him to be allowed to see the face of his accusers to enable him to do effective cross-examination.
The other defendants are the Judicial Council, the Judicial Council’s Disciplinary Committee, Tiger Eye P-I, the Attorney- General and two personalities whose names were given only as Messrs Erskine and Yankey.
The applicant describes Messrs Erskine and Yankey as “decoys,” who usually appear before the committee in the company of Anas to “confuse members of the public.”
He said all the three representatives of Tiger Eye P I “looked like extra-terrestrials because of the thick, beady veils which they had worn as extensions to hoods which covered their heads and ears.”
Gabriel, through his lawyer, Mr Egbert Faibille, is asking the court to declare that by reason of Article 17 of the 1992 Constitution, he is entitled to cross-examine Anas, Erskine and Yankey and any member of staff of Tiger Eye P I without their faces covered.
He is also seeking a declaration that the protection given whistleblowers pursuant to Section 12 and 17 of Act 720 did not entitle Anas, Erskine and Yankey to be veiled when they appear before the Disciplinary Committee, such that he could not see their faces during their testimonies against him.
The plaintiff is also praying the court to hold that an October 21, 2015, ruling which dismissed his request for the unveiling of Anas and the two others is a violation of his right as provided by Article 23 of the 1992 Constitution.
“A declaration that 2nd Defendant, acting as agent of 1st Defendant, has, by its ruling dated the 21st day of October 2015, violated the duty imposed by Article 296 (a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution on it to be fair and candid and act without prejudice inter alia.
“An order setting aside the ruling of 2nd Defendant acting as agent of 1st Defendant dated the 21st day of October 2015 for being an infringement of the fundamental human rights of plaintiff,” Gabriel’s writ of summons noted.
He is also requesting a perpetual injunction to restrain the committee and its agents from proceeding to show the video.
A further request for the award of general damages and costs is being sought by Gabriel.
According to the plaintiff, because the so-called Anas tapes/recordings have been shown to the public at the Accra International Conference Centre and “subsequent media commentaries on same with most commentators and members of the public declaring all those seen in the video recordings ‘guilty,’ the
Disciplinary Committee had become so prejudiced to the extent that it does not want to grant him his right to cross-examine the maker(s) of the videos without any veil or hood on their faces.
He said unless compelled by the court, the Judicial Council and its Disciplinary Committee would continue to assist Anas and his team to violate his fundamental human rights.