High Court Judge sued investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas for fraud

Anas Aremeyaw Anas

One of the indicted High Court Judges in the 2015 judicial corruption scandal Justice Habib Logoh has sued investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas for fraud.

The investigative piece, carried out by Anas’ investigative firm, Tiger Eye PI, indicted Justice Logo and some other High Court Judges for trading justice for money, which subsequently led to some being dismissed, and others serving a suspension
.

Justice Logoh has subsequently filed a suit, questioning the legality of the investigation conducted by Tiger Eye PI.

In his statement of claim, Justice Logoh contends among other things that “Tiger Eye PI, is a non-existing entity and as such it lacks the capacity to carry out private investigations into the Judicial Service.”

The Plaintiff further contends that Anas Aremeyaw Anas also “lacks the capacity to conduct private investigations into the Judicial Service without a licence/permit from the Minister of Interior pursuant to the Police Service (Private Security Organizations Regulations), 1992 (L.I. 1571).”

Justice Logoh also recently cited the Chief Justice, Justice Theodora Georgina Wood for contempt of court in her handling of the same matter.

Justice Logoh filed that writ on Wednesday February 1, 2017. Justice Logoh and his colleague Uter Dery, have filed several suits all in an attempt to clear their names for their alleged roles in the scandal.

Justice Logoh’s suit against Anas

Mr. Habib is seeking the following reliefs:

A declaration that the 2nd Defendant lacks jurisdiction to administratively enquire into the 1st Defendant’s petition that complained of the alleged commission of a criminal offence upon a true and purposive interpretation of Articles 19(1); 125(3) & (5); 126(1) and 146(3), (4) & (5) of the 1992 Constitution.

A declaration that the Committee provided for by Article 146(4) of the 1992 Constitution to perform functions under Article 146(5) of the Constitution, not being a court known by Article 126(1) of the Constitution lacks jurisdiction to enquire into the 1st Defendant’s petition.

A declaration that the 1st Defendant lacks the capacity to conduct private investigations without a licence from the Minister of Interior pursuant to the Police Service (Private Security Organizations Regulations), 1992 (L.I. 1571). A declaration that Tiger Eye PI, a non-existing entity lacks the capacity to conduct private investigations.

A declaration that the evidence procured by the 1st Defendant to support his petition to the President for his removal from office is unlawful and thus inadmissible for purposes of any impeachment or investigative proceedings.

A declaration that the purported investigations by the 1st Defendant is in violation of his fundamental human right to privacy as guaranteed by Article 18(2) of the 1992 Constitution and other International Human Rights Instruments.

A declaration that the 1st Defendant obtained the personal data of the Plaintiff in violation of the Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843).

A declaration that the President and the 2nd Defendant have failed to protect the Plaintiff’s fundamental human right to privacy by relying on the evidence the 1st Defendant procured in violation of his human rights pursuant to Article 18(2) of the 1992 Constitution and International Human Rights Instruments.

A declaration that the President and the 2nd Defendant’s actions in impeaching the Plaintiff by relying on the evidence unlawfully procured by the 1st Defendant is attempting to unlawfully and unfairly deprive the Plaintiff of his right to work guaranteed by Article 24 and 33(5) of the 1992 Constitution and International Human Rights Instruments.

An order terminating the impeachment proceedings as a result of the unlawfully procured evidence by the 1st Defendant.

Source: Citifm