Fights back: Justice Dery sues UTV, Conference Centre for contempt

An exposé by ace investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas was premiered at AICC despite an application of interlocutory injunction served the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' property.

Accra International Conference Centre (AICC) showed Anas’ judicial corruption video

Lawyers of embattled high court judge, Justice Paul Uuter Dery have filed a contempt suit against the management of the Accra International Conference Centre (AICC) for going ahead to show journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas’ judicial corruption video.

The legal team also included local television station UTV in the contempt case for telecasting excerpts of the video yesterday on their network.

UTV telecast excerpts of the video yesterday on their network

An exposé by Anas and his Tiger Eye PI team was premiered at AICC despite an application of interlocutory injunction served the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' property.

The auditorium was full to capacity

According to Nii Kpakpa, lawyer of the judge, the decision by the manager of AICC to go ahead with showing of the video in which some thirty-four justices are captured allegedly taking bribes to free suspects in robbery and murder cases is a blatant disrespect to the court, hence their suit at the Supreme Court.

He also warned the management of AICC to desist from showing the video today so as to help them purge themselves of the contempt charges brought against them.

Justice Paul Uuter Dery after suing the producers of the video, Tiger Eye PI, earlier filed another suit to stop the premiering of the video at the Accra International Conference Centre.

The suit was against the Director of Estates and General Services at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Chief Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Manager of the Accra International Conference Centre and the Attorney General.

He wanted the screening to be halted until his case with the private investigation entity was settled, indicating that, he would suffer prejudice and irreparable damage if the respondents are not restrained and his suit succeeds in the long run.

Justice Dery, who has already filed three different suits against Anas, the Attorney General and the Conference has also headed to the Supreme Court to get the court to declare as null and void Anas’ petition for him to be dismissed.

Below is the full writ:

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ON NOTICE FOR COMMITTAL FOR CONTEMPT PURSUANT TO ORDER 50 R1 (2) OF C.I. 47 I, His Lordship, Paul Uuter Dery of Unnumbered House, Spintex Road, Accra, do hereby make oath and say as follows:

1. That I am the Applicant herein and the deponent hereto. 

2. That I depose to this affidavit in support referring to facts and matters that are either within my personal knowledge and belief or which are based on information provided to me by third parties, which I verily believe to be true. 

3. That the 1st Respondent is the Manager of the Accra International Conference Centre, Osu, Accra. 

4. That the 2nd Respondent is the Station Manager of the United Television Station in Accra. 

5. That on the 16th of September, 2015, I caused a Writ of Summons to be issued from the Registry of this Honourable Court titled His Lordship Justice Paul Uuter Dery v. 1. The Director of Estates and General Services Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2. The Chief Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs 3. The Manager, Accra International Conference Centre 4. The Attorney General, prohibiting the Defendants therein from prejudicing my case by making their Accra International Conference Centre facility available to Tigereyepi and its Media Partners. (Please, find attached and exhibited as “PUD 1” a copy of the said suit). 

6. That the 1st Respondent herein is the 3rd Defendant in the above mentioned Suit. 

7. That the Defendants in the said Suit including the Respondent herein were served with the said Writ on the 16th of September, 2015. (Please, find attached and exhibited as “PUD2” a copy of the proof of service). 

8. That on the 22nd of September, 2015, I also filed an Interlocutory Injunction against the Defendants in the above mentioned suit seeking to restrain the Defendants from making the Accra International Conference Centre available to Tigereyepi and its Media Partners for the screening of the alleged audio visual recordings. (Please, find attached and exhibited as “PUD3” a copy of the Interlocutory Injunction). 

9. That the 1st Respondent herein, who is the 3rd Defendant in the said suit was served with the said Interlocutory Injunction on the 22nd of September, 2015. (Please, find attached and exhibited as “PUD4” a copy of the proof of service). 

10. That notwithstanding, the 1st Respondent having been served with the said Interlocutory Injunction, the 1st Respondent went ahead to make the Accra International Conference Centre available to Tigereyepi and its Media Partners, blatantly disregarding, undermining and prejudicing the authority of this Honourable Court. 

11. That the 2nd Respondent was issued a letter dated the 15th of September , 2015 and received by one Rosemond Kankam on the 16th of September, 2015 notifying it of the pending suit against Tigereye PI, Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana and the Attorney General. (Please, find attached and exhibited as “PUD5” a copy of the said letter).

12. That even after receiving the letter dated the 15th of September, 2015, the 2nd Respondent on the 22nd of September, 2015, at around 10 pm aired contents of the audio visual recording on its television station, United Television. 

13. That the Respondents have knowledge of the pendency of my actions before the court.

14. That the Respondents’ conduct is calculated to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect and disregard and to interfere with the course of justice.

15. That the 1st Respondent’s act of making the Accra International Conference Centre available to Tigereyepi and its Media Partners for the public screening of the alleged audio visual recordings on the 22nd of September, 2015, seeks to prejudice the fair trial of the case and that singular act amounts to contempt of Court. 

16. That the 2nd Respondent’s act of telecasting the contents of the audio visual recording to the public seeks to prejudice the fair trial of the case and that singular act mounts to contempt of Court.

17. That the Respondents’ conduct is in bad faith, is malicious and is prejudicial to the determination of the case before the court. 

18. In the circumstances, I pray that this obvious disregard to the Court amounts to nothing more than contempt of Court of which the Respondents ought to be convicted and punished.