0
Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong - Attorney General and Minister for Justice
The Attorney General (AG) has filed a statement of case at the Supreme Court admitting an “administrative error" over who petitioned the Chief Justice and the president of Ghana concerning investigations into the judicial scandal by journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas over bribery allegations involving some 34 justices.







Documents available to ClassFMonline.com indicate an admission by the AG’s office that it was Anas Aremeyaw Anas who filed the petition for the impeachment of the judges and not Tiger Eye PI.

The document, signed by Mrs Dorothy Afriyie-Ansah, a Chief State Attorney for the AG on 21st March, 2016, pointed out in paragraphs 7.4 and 7.7 on pages 9, 10 and 11 of the document that “the 2nd Defendant [Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana] had only made an error in the discharge of her administrative duties”.

“That error consisted of mis-describing the true petitioner or author of Exhibit ‘AG 1’ by substituting Tiger Eye PI for Anas Aremeyaw Anas,” the statement indicated.

According to the statement of case, the plaintiffs are not bound by the action of the errors.

The statement further states that: “The letterhead on which the petition was made bears the name of the first defendant [Tiger Eye PI]. It was, however, signed by Anas Aremeyaw Anas.”

It will be recalled that three of the High Court judges cited in the scandal filed a writ at the Supreme Court on 17 February, 2016 to dismiss petitions for their impeachment.

Tiger Eye PI, the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana, and the Attorney General were all cited as first, second, and third defendants, respectively in the lawsuit.

Justices Paul Uuter Dery, Gilbert Ayisi Addo, and Mustapha Habib Logoh have argued that Tiger Eye PI is not a registered legal entity in Ghana and has no authority to petition the president for their removal from office.

According to the writ, the plaintiffs pointed out that “the 1st Defendant’s ‘petitions’ to the President of Ghana for their removal from office as Justices of the Superior Court are inconsistent with, and, in contravention of Article 146(3) of the 1992 Constitution, as the 1st Defendant does not exist in fact and in law as a ‘petitioner’ to have submitted the said petitions”.

They also indicated that Tiger Eye PI does not have the legal capacity “to submit ‘the petitions’ to the president for their removal from office”.

According to the embattled justices, the actions of Tiger Eye Pi constitute fraud and they feel it was against the laws of the land for the President of Ghana and the Chief Justice to dismiss High Court judges based on information by a fraudulent entity.

They are, therefore, seeking “for the enforcement of Article 146(3) of the 1992 Constitution in the light of the lack of capacity of the 1st Defendant as the latter does not exist in fact and in law and as such, not an identifiable ‘petitioner’ armed with the purported ‘petitions’.

The writ indicated that a search at the Registrar General’s Department and the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) did not present any results indicating that Tiger Eye PI existed.

The plaintiffs were part of 34 judges caught on camera allegedly taking bribes to warp justice. The Chief Justice, on the orders of the president, has sacked a number of the judges since the incident broke.







Source: classfm

Post a Comment Blogger



Comment Form Message RULES:
Just CLICK on "FACEBOOK" to use it as alternative.
1. Caps allowed in moderation;
2. NO OUTSIDE LINK;
3. No Bullying,
4. No Swearing;
5. No Spoiling;
6. No harassing other users;
7. No flooding or spamming;
8. No posting of private contact information;
9. No impersonating other members;
10. Racism of any type NOT allowed.
Use "Contact Form" to send your Article or News.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.

 
Top