A second High Court judge implicated in the latest judicial corruption scandal has also taken legal action against Tiger Eye PI, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General of Ghana in an effort to challenge the legality of the impeachment processes against him.
Justice Mohammed Habib Logoh who filed a writ at the Accra Fast Track High Court is seeking, among a total of 10 reliefs, “A declaration that the purported audio-visual recordings and transcripts in which the Plaintiff was allegedly captured is unlawful and the same amounts to entrapment”.
Justice Logoh joins Justice P. Dery who filed a similar writ on Monday demanding about 17 reliefs from the same court.
The two are among 180 Judicial Service officials including 34 judges captured on video allegedly taking bribes to influence their verdict on cases before them.
The Chief Justice has subsequently instituted impeachment processes against the High Court judges following the submission of a petition by Investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas to the President and the Chief Justice in respect of the 12 High Court judges and the 22 lower court judges respectively.
The 12 high court judges are currently under investigations and have filed their written responses while the 22 lower court judges have been suspended pending the final determination of the case against them by a five-member committee.
However, there are reports that the remaining ten High Court judges are also preparing to challenge their impeachment, arguing on basis that the process is unlawful.
Justice Logoh is also demanding the following reliefs from the High Court:
1. A Declaration that the Directive given through the 3ro Defendant for the 2nd Defendant io use the audio-visual recordings and transcripts as a basis
to commence impeachment proceedings against the P ain% is null and void and of no legal consequence whatsoever;
2. A Declaration that the action taken by the 2nd Defendant pursuant to the said directive is equally null and void;
3. A Declaration that the 2nd Defendant has no right to violate existing law or legal right of the Plaintiff under any colour;
4. A Declaration that any purported immunity granted by the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant, its Chief Executive Officer (Anas Aremeyaw Anas) is a
5. A Declaration that the continuous leakage of the contents of the audio-visual recordings and transcripts by the Defendants to media houses and
social platforms is in breach of Plaintiff’s rights;
6. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its Chief Executive Officer, workmen, privies, and agents howsoever described
from public screening of the said illegal audio-visual recordings;
7. An order or perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from relying on the said audio-visual recordings and transcripts in any
proceedings howsoever described.
8. Cost including legal fees and,
9. Any other order(s) that the Honourable Court may deem fit to make.