Dery, Logoh sue GJA over Anas award

Embattled judges Justice Paul Uuter Dery and Mustapha Habib Logoh have sued the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) for conferring the Journalist of the Year 2015 award on investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas.

Anas was decorated with the coveted award of the inky fraternity following a two-year investigation which exposed rot in justice delivery in Ghana. About 22 lower court judges and some senior ones have been dismissed by the chief justice and President John Mahama respectively for being caught on video receiving bribes to compromise justice.

Dery and Logoh are in court contesting a petition by Anas to have them dismissed over their conduct in the video evidence. The other defendants in the case are Anas (1st defendant), Roland Affail Monney (2nd - GJA president), Mathias Tibu 4th defendant, Vice President (GJA), Dave Agbenu 5th defendant, General Secretary (GJA), Rogking Clottey 6th defendant, Organising Secretary (GJA), Linda Asante 7th defendant Treasurer (GJA), and Mary Mensah 8th defendant Public Relations Officer (GJA)

According to them, awarding Anas is prejudicial and unconstitutional on the part of the umbrella body of journalists in Ghana since the petition is being challenged.

They want the court to declare that “the conduct of the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) on 27th August, 2016 by which the GJA, at its 21st Awards ceremony, gave the “Overall Best Journalist of the Year, 2015 Award” to Anas Aremeyaw Anas for his exposé on so-called judicial bribery and corruption is inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 3 (3) (a) and 3 (4) (a) of the 1992 Constitution and thus unconstitutional.”

They also want a declaration that: “The conduct of the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) on 27th August, 2016 by which the GJA, at its 21st Awards ceremony, gave the “Overall Best Journalist of the Year, 2015 Award” to Anas Aremeyaw Anas for his exposé on so-called judicial bribery and corruption is inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 41 (b) and (d) of the 1992 Constitution and thus unconstitutional.

“A declaration that the conduct of the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) on 27th August, 2016 by which the GJA, at its 21st Awards ceremony, gave the “Overall Best Journalist of the Year, 2015 Award” to Anas Aremeyaw Anas for his exposé on so-called judicial bribery and corruption is inconsistent with or in contravention of Article 162 (5) of the 1992 Constitution and thus unconstitutional.

“A declaration that the conduct of the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) on 27th August, 2016 by which the GJA, at its 21st Awards ceremony, gave the “Overall Best Journalist of the Year, 2015 Award” to Anas Aremeyaw Anas for his exposé on so-called judicial bribery and corruption when cases are pending in the Supreme Court and the High Court over the subject matter of the exposé on the so-called judicial bribery and corruption amounts to contempt of court pursuant to Articles 19 (12) and 126 (2) of the 1992 Constitution.

“An order nullifying the Award the Ghana Journalist Association (GJA) gave to the 1st Defendant pursuant to Article 1 (2) of the 1992 Constitution. “An order directed at the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) to withdraw the Award from Anas Aremeyaw Anas.

“An order punishing the Executive Committee Members of the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) herein for contempt of court.”

Dery and Logoh are also seeking the following reliefs:

“

1. A declaration that the Plaintiffs never demanded for any money from the 1st Defendant to influence their decisions in any cases pending before them.


“
2. 2. A declaration that the audiovisual recordings and transcripts therefore were fraudulently and unlawfully obtained by the 1st Defendant.


“
3. 3. General damages for invasion of privacy against the 1st Defendant.


“
4. 4. Punitive damages for invasion of privacy against the 1st Defendant

“

1. General damages for defamation against the 1st Defendant.


“
2. Aggravated damages for the malicious and fraudulent recordings, publication and circulation of audiovisual recordings.


“
3. Exemplary damages against the reckless publications and circulations of the said audio visual recordings.


“
4. Compensatory damages against for the damage done to the Plaintiffs’ reputation.


“
5. A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants from publishing any further malicious, unlawful and defamatory material about the Plaintiffs.

“

6. Costs including legal fees. “