Anas
Anas

Justice Ayisi Addo filed the case on Monday November 16, 2015, citing Mr Anas, his Tiger Eye PI firm, the Chief Justice, and the Attorney General as defendants.

Anas
Anas
The Plaintiff is seeking redress against the defendants jointly and severally in connection with 32 reliefs wherefore he claims the following:

1. A declaration that the 1st Defendant has no capacity to file a petition for his removal from office owing to the fact that the first defendant is not a registered entity and therefore has no legal personality.

2. A declaration that the first defendant is not licensed to carry out private investigations under the laws of Ghana.

3. A declaration that the audio-visual recordings and the transcripts thereof were fraudulently and unlawfully obtained by the first defendant.

4. A declaration that the audio-visual recordings and the transcripts thereof constitute an entrapment of the plaintiff, which is intolerable in law.

5. A declaration that the audio-visual recordings and the transcripts thereof constitute a breach and transgress all rules of justice, fair play and equity.

6. A declaration that the allegations contained in the audio-visual recordings and the transcripts thereof remain unproven and do not amount to proof of the commission of any crime by the plaintiff.

7. A declaration that the public screening of the audio-visual recordings and the transcripts thereof was to prejudice the case of the plaintiff on the allegations of bribery and corruption levelled against him by the first defendant.

8. A declaration that the public screening of the audio-visual recordings and the transcripts thereof were unlawful and unconstitutional.

9. A declaration that any purported immunity granted by the third defendant to the first defendant, its Chief Executive Officer, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, its privies, agents and assigns is unlawful and of no effect.

10. A declaration that the confidentiality attached to impeachment proceedings of justices of the Superior Court which extends to documents and other relevant materials including audio-visual recordings and the transcripts thereof has been breached by the defendants.

11. A declaration that the first defendant is not a whistle blower under the definition of the law.

12. A declaration that the first defendant’s act of secretly recording the plaintiff constitutes a violation of the plaintiff’s right to privacy and, therefore, unlawful and unconstitutional.

13. A declaration that the first defendant carefully and maliciously pieced together the audio-visual recordings and the transcripts thereof in a manner to incriminate the plaintiff on the allegations of bribery and corruption.

14. A declaration that the second defendant, acting in her administrative capacity under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, is not a court of competent jurisdiction.

15. A declaration that the second defendant, acting in her administrative capacity under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, cannot make a prima facie finding of bribery and corruption against the plaintiff contrary to Section 244 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act(1960), Act 29, and Rule 2 of the CCJMG.

16. A declaration that the prima facie findings made against the plaintiff by the second defendant, on account of the petition filed by the first defendant, is unlawful and unconstitutional.

17. A declaration that the second defendant is under a constitutional obligation only to determine a prima facie case against the plaintiff based solely on the allegations contained in the petition filed by the first defendant.

18. A declaration that the ruling attached to the second defendant’s letter dated 5th October, 2015, addressed to the Plaintiff making a prima facie finding against the Plaintiff on alleged acts of misbehavior arising out of alleged “ex parte discussions with one party on a case pending before him contrary to Rule 3(7) and 4(A) of the CCJMG” is wrong, unconstitutional, null and void on account of the fact that the said allegations were never contained in the petition filed by the first defendant.

19. A declaration that the second defendant breached the principle of audi alteram partem when she made prima facie findings on the allegations of ex parte discussions with court personnel on any case pending before him without granting the plaintiff prior notice of the charge and an opportunity to be heard in his defence.

20. A declaration that the purported suspension of the plaintiff by the President of the Republic of Ghana on account of the prima facie findings made by the second defendant is null and void.

21. A declaration that the second defendant breached the principle of audi alteram partem when she made prima facie findings on the allegations of ex parte discussions with one party on any case pending before him and without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.

22. An order revoking the suspension of the plaintiff by the President of the Republic of Ghana on account of the prima facie findings made by the second defendant.

23. An order restraining the second defendant, her privies, agents and assigns from publishing the contents of the illegally and unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings.

24. An order prohibiting the first defendant, as the primary custodian and copyright holder to the audio-visual recordings, its agents, privies and assigns from releasing same to the international media and various social media outlets.

25. An order restraining the second defendant from relying on the contents of the illegally or unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings.

26. A perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from carrying out any public screening of the said illegally and unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings.

27. A perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from ever publishing or causing to be published the content of the said illegally and unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings through any media platform howsoever described including social media.

28. A perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant, her privies, assigns and whosoever from carrying out any form of enquiry however or whatsoever described against the plaintiff founded on the contents of the petition or the audio-visual recordings submitted by the first defendant.

29. A perpetual injunction restraining the first defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from ever publishing or causing to be published the contents of the said illegally and unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings through any media platform howsoever described, including social media.

30. General damages against the first defendant for the invasion of the plaintiff’s privacy.

31. Cost including legal fees.

32. Any other order(s) that the honourable court may deem fit to make.

DATED IN ACCRA THIS 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015.

Source: Ghana/ClassFMonline.com/91.3fm

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.