<<Print>>

Another High Court judge cited in the judicial corruption scandal has challenged the impeachment proceedings initiated by the Judicial Council against him.

In a writ filed on Tuesday, Mr Justice Mustapha Habib Logoh is contending that the purported audio visual recordings and transcripts in which he was allegedly captured taking bribe were unlawful and amounted to entrapment.

According to him, the directive given through the Attorney General to the Chief Justice to use the audio visual recordings and transcripts as a basis to commence impeachment proceedings against him was null and void and of no legal consequences.

The defendants named in the writ are Tiger Eye P I, Chief Justice and Attorney General and Minister of Justice.

Justice Logoh is also seeking a declaration to prevent investigate journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas from making public the video which allegedly captured acts of bribery.

Below are the reliefs being sought in the writ.

1. A declaration that the purported audio visual recordings and transcripts in which the Plaintiff who allegedly captured is unlawful and the same amounts to entrapment.

2. A Declaration that the Directive given through the 3rd Defendant for the 2nd Defendant to use the audio visual recordings and transcripts as a basis to commence impeachment proceedings against the plaintiff is null and void and of no legal consequence whatsoever.

3. A Declaration that the action taken by the 2nd Defendant pursuant of the said directive is equally null and void.

4. A Declaration that the 2nd Defendant has no right to violate existing law or legal right of the Plaintiff under any colour.

5. A Declaration that any purported immunity granted the 3rd Defendant, the 1st Defendant, its Chief Executive Officer (Anas Aremeyaw Anas) is a nullify.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Cost including legal fees.

10. Any other order(s) that the Honourable Court may deem fit to make.