Justice Dery Appeals Against Anas Contempt

Justice Paul Uuter Dery, one of the judges allegedly implicated in the Anas Aremeyaw Anas exposé on massive corruption in the judiciary, has filed an appeal against the dismissal of his contempt application against the investigative reporter and four others.

Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, an appeals court judge sitting with additional responsibility, on Tuesday dismissed the application seeking to have Anas and the four other respondents jailed for contempt.

At the time of the hearing, counsel for the judge was not around.

The applicant wanted Anas, Samuel Frimpong and Ernest Addo, all staff of The New Crusading Guide, Sulemana Braimah, Executive Director of the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) and Kwabena Anokye Adisi, popularly called Bola Ray, who is the boss of EIB Network, jailed for contempt.

In his notice of appeal, Justice Dery said he was dissatisfied with the decision of Justice Torkonoo and noted that she erred when she heard the case on September 29, 2015 when the Court Registrar had the hearing slated for October 12, 2015.

Breach
He further stated that the trial judge went ahead to hear the matter without informing him or his lawyers and stated that the action of the judge breached his right to be heard.

In addition, he said the judge erred by breaching the rules of natural justice when she failed to grant him audience.

Explaining further, he noted that Justice Torkonoo erred when she dismissed the application on grounds that his application against Anas, Tiger Eye PI, the Chief Justice and the Attorney General had already been withdrawn.

Justice Dery stated that the trial judge erred when she held that his contempt application had no merit.

The trial judge had on Tuesday dismissed the application in its entirety on grounds that the application lacked merit and also because the substantive application against the showing of the video had been withdrawn.

Dery's Application
Justice Dery had alleged that Tiger Eye PI, through its Chief Executive Officer, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, who is the first respondent and also the Acting Editor-in-Chief of The New Crusading Guide, 'caused to be published on various media platforms, transcripts of the audio-visual recordings he has unlawfully procured in support of his bribery allegations against him.'

The high court judge also alleged that Tiger Eye PI, Samuel Frimpong, the Editor of The New Crusading Guide, his deputy Ernest Addo, Bola Ray and Sulemana Braimah advertised that there would be a public screening of the said audio-visual recordings at the Accra International Conference Centre on the 22nd and 23rd of September, 2015.

This was after he had sued Tiger Eye PI, its CEO Anas Aremeyaw Anas and others to prevent the screening before the matter was heard in court.

Justice Dery also said Anas, in concert with the rest he sued, continued to advertise the public screening of the said illegally and unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings and 'that the Respondents have also evinced a further intention of overreaching this Court by publishing the said audio-visual recordings on international media platforms such as Aljazeera Television Network and other social media platforms such as YouTube, Facebook and WhatsApp.'

The judge also argued that 'the substantive editor-in-chief of The New Crusading Guide has evinced a clear intention to continually bring the administration of justice into disrepute when he stated in an interview with Joy Fm, an Accra-based radio station, on 17th September, 2015 as follows: 'Can anybody place an injunction on the sky? We are in the world of technology. Can any court stop people from seeing something in the sky? Can anybody injunct the international media when it is not emanating from the person you are litigating against?' According to Justice Dery, the 'respondents' conduct is calculated to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect and disregard and to interfere in any way with the course of justice' and that 'the Respondents' act of publishing the said transcripts and portions of the audio-visual recordings seeks to prejudice the fair trial of the case and that singular act amounts to contempt of Court.'

By Fidelia Achama