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.
إرسال تعليق