A justice of the High Court, Justice Paul Uuter Dery is bent on blocking the video showing him allegedly taking bribe to compromise a case before him from airing.
Aside from suing the producers of the video, Tiger Eye P I, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General, his latest move is to stop the Accra International Conference Centre (AICC) from using its venue to screen the said video on September 22 and 23, 2015, Graphic Online has gathered.
Graphic Online has also gathered that a lawyer for Justice Dery, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo, on Wednesday morning issued a writ of summons directed at the Director of Estates and General Services, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Chief Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Manager of the AICC and the Attorney-General.
The video has been scheduled for screening at the AICC on September 22 and 23, 2015, but Mr Dery wants the screening to be halted until his case with the private investigation entity, owned by ace investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, was settled.
According to the applicant, he would suffer prejudice and irreparable damage if the respondents are not restrained and his suit succeeds in the long run.
In this latest application against officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General, Justice Dery is seeking “a declaration that the intended public screening of the contents of the audio visual recordings to the public by Tiger Eye P I at the AICC is prejudicial to the plaintiff’s right to a fair hearing.
An order restraining the defendants and their agents from making the AICC available for the intended public screening of the said video from September 22 to September 23, 2015.
A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from publishing the contents of the illegality and unlawfully procured audio visual recordings at any of its facilities.
A perpetual injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from carrying out or making the AICC or any of its facilities available for public screening of the said illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual recordings.
Cost including legal fees and any other order (s) that the honourable court may deem fit to make.”
Application for injunction
Meanwhile, an application for interim injunction filed by Justice Dery on September 15, 2015, is asking the Fast Track High Court to restrain Tiger Eye P I from airing the video.
He wants an injunction placed on the screening of the said video, which includes him allegedly taking bribe.
Other respondents in the substantive suit are the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General.
The applicant and 33 other judges, was alleged to have taken bribes to influence cases pending before them.
Anas, in a two-year investigation, uncovered the said rot and as a result, the Judicial Council has instituted investigations, which might lead to impeachment of Justice Dery and 11 superior court justices.
More than 100 members of staff of the Judicial Service have also been linked to the scandal.
Portions of the video have been leaked and displeased with the development, Mr Dery on September 14, 2015, filed a suit on the grounds that Tiger Eye P I obtained the said video unlawfully.
Application for injunction
The application for injunction is asking among other requests that Tiger Eye Tiger P I and its agents must be stopped from “carrying out a public screening of the alleged evidence contained in audio visual recordings at the Accra International Conference Centre on September 22 and 23, 2015 at 8pm, part of the subject matter of this suit, until the final determination of the suit.
The Respondent, its assigns, servants, agents, and workmen should also be restrained from leaking and further publication of various portions of the said audio visual recordings to the public through various media outlets including social media platforms until the final determination of the case.”
Setting out a number of grounds for filing the motion, the applicant stated among other issues that “the confidentiality attached to the impeachment proceedings should also extend to documents and other relevant materials employed or to be employed in the proceedings.
That it would be just, fair and convenient for this honourable court to restrain the respondent, its assigns, privies and agents from carrying out its intended public screening of the alleged evidence contained in audio visual recordings at the Accra International Conference Centre of September 22 and 23, 2015 at 8pm, part of the subject matter of this suit, until the final determination of the suit.”
According to the applicant, it would be just, fair and convenient for the court to restrain Tiger Eye P I “from leaking and further publication of various portions of the said audio visual recordings to the public, through various media outlets, including social media platforms until the final determination of the case.
Justice Dery contends he had established there was a serious question to be tried or a right to be protected.
Justice Dery said he stood to suffer irreparable damage in the likely event that he was successful in the substantive case and on the balance of convenience, he stood to suffer more harm than the Tiger Eye P I if the application for injunction was not granted.
He said the application was the only remedy available to him in law to prevent the continuous violations of his rights.
His lawyer intends to rely on 36 legal authorities to make a case for him.