body-container-line-1

Anas Asked To Appear In Court Over Sannie Daara Lawsuit

By CitiNewsRoom
Football News Anas Asked To Appear In Court Over Sannie Daara Lawsuit
FEB 18, 2019 LISTEN

A judge has ruled that Anas Aremeyaw Anas and his Tiger Eye PI must defend themselves in court over the human rights case brought against them by the former Ghana Football Association Communications Director, Ibrahim Sannie Daara after they asked their lawyers to answer to the lawsuit on their behalf.

The judge, Justice Nicholas Abodakpi, in his ruling, said Anas' claim that he could not be personally present in court because of threat to his life was 'incompetent and inadmissible' and ordered his lawyers to file a fresh Affidavit in answer within 14 days.

In August 2018, Sannie Daara brought two lawsuits against Anas and his Tiger Eye team over what he claims were violations of his human rights over the No 12 investigation that claimed that: 'Sannie Daara was bribed by Tiger to influence the selection of a player into the national team. He made a colleague accept it on his behalf'.

He's also seeking a $6 million dollars in damages over defamation of character.

The judge had ordered Anas to be present in court to testify as a witness as the video from Number 12 only amounted to hearsay.

But Anas’ lawyers, led by Kissi Adjabeng, told the court that Anas’ could not be present because of threats to his life spearheaded by Member of Parliament for Assin Central, Kennedy Agyapong.

Lawyer for Sannie Daara, Dominic Ayine told the court to that Anas’ decision to avoid appearing in court “is a grand scheme designed by the 1st and 2nd respondents to shield themselves from public scrutiny to enable them remain anonymous so as to continue their dastardly acts against unsuspecting individuals in society.

There is no public interest justification for the unavailability of the 1st and 2nd respondents to openly and directly to provide testimony in court and be cross-examined.”

The judge in his ruling, said “…if there’s danger to the lives of the Respondents in meeting and corresponding with their lawyers, then the exact source of authority by which the lawyers are acting for them is questionable.”

No costs were awarded.

body-container-line