Justice Dery sues managers of AICC and UTV for contempt

Accra, Sept. 23, GNA - Justice Paul Uuter Dery, one of the High Court Judges, who was caught allegedly taking bribes in the corruption expose, has sued the Manager of the Accra International Conference Centre (AICC) and United Television (UTV) for contempt.

Justice Dery, who filed the suit at the Accra High Court, was praying the court for it to commit the Manager of AICC and the station Manager of UTV into prison for contempt of court upon grounds set out in an affidavit filed in court.

The High Court Judge in a supporting affidavit indicated that on September 16, he caused a writ of summons on some parties including the Manager of AICC prohibiting the parties from prejudicing his case by making the centre available for Anas and his team.

Justice Dery said the Manager of AICC having been served with an interlocutory injunction on September 22, went ahead to make the centre available, blatantly disregarding, undermining and prejudicing the authority of the court.

He said the Manager of UTV was issued with a letter dated September 15 and was received by one Rosemond Kankam on the September 16 notifying it of the pending suit against Anas, Chief Justice and the Attorney General.

He said even after receiving the letter, UTV on September 22 at 2200 hours aired the content of the audio visual.

The Judge said the conduct of UTV was calculated to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect and disregard and to interfere with the course of justice.

He said the Manager of AICC's act of making available the centre to tigereyepi and its media partners for public screening for the audio-visual recording seeks to prejudice the fair trial of the case and that singular act amounts to contempt.

'The second respondent's act of telecasting the contents of the audio-visual recording to the public seeks to prejudice the fair trial and that singular act amounts to contempt of court,' he added.

He said the respondents' conduct was in bad fair, malicious and was prejudicial to the determination of the case before the court.

In the circumstance, l pray that this obvious disregard to the court amounts to nothing more than contempt of court of which the respondents ought to be convicted.

GNA