October 27, 2016
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Three Ghanaian High Court judges challenged removal petitions linked to a high-profile judicial corruption investigation. They sued Tiger Eye PI, the Chief Justice, and the Attorney-General, arguing the petitions were invalid because Tiger Eye PI did not legally exist and thus lacked capacity, rendering the submissions fraudulent and unconstitutional under Article 146(3). The defendants maintained that investigative journalist-lawyer Anas Aremeyaw Anas personally authored and signed the petitions, merely using Tiger Eye PI’s letterhead. The Supreme Court scrutinized Exhibit AG1 and applied evidentiary principles, finding clear personal authorship: the petition repeatedly used the first-person and declared itself the petition of Anas Aremeyaw Anas. Concluding Tiger Eye PI was improperly sued, the Court dismissed the suit as the threshold authorship issue disposed of the case.
JUDGMENT
AKAMBA, JSC.
PROLOGUE
This case involves serving judges on issues pertaining to allegations of corruption of office. Owing to the nature of the case, it is with the greatest trepidation that we sit in judgment over our colleagues, knowing what consequences may flow should they be found culpable. However, it is not for nothing that ‘Lady Justice’ has been depicted wearing a blindfold signifying objectivity; in that justice is, or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of money, wealth, fame, power or identity. We are therefore obliged to adhere to our judicial oaths to do justice according to law and nothing else.
BRIEF FACTS
The three Plaintiffs herein are Justices of the High Court of Justice. The 1st Defendant purports to be a company limited by shares and registered under the laws of Ghana. The 2nd Defendant is the head of the Judiciary of Ghana and responsible for the administration and supervision of the Judiciary while the 3rd Defendant is the principal legal advisor to the Government of Ghana. Sometime in early September 2015, the Plaintiffs and others were summoned to the office of the 2nd defendant where they were each given letters notifying them that the 1st Defendant had petitioned the President of the Republic of Ghana for their removal from office as Justices of the Superior Court on allegations of bribery. The letters requested the Plaintiffs to submit their responses to the allegations contained in the 1st Defendant’s petition by 14th September 2015 to enable the 2nd Defendant determine whether or not there was a prima facie case made against each of the Plaintiffs. Meanwhile the Plaintiffs embarked upon their own investigations into the backgrounds of the petitioner ostensibly from the Registrar General’s Department and the Social Security and National Insurance Trust (SSNIT) as to whether or not 1st Defendant was known to them as a corporate body. The outcome of the investigations was that the 1st Defendant is not a body corporate registered under the Companies Act, 1963, Act 179. The records at the Registrar General’s Department allude to the existence of a different company, known as Tiger Eye Pl Media Ltd but not the 1st Defendant. The result of the search from the SSNIT was equally unfavourable as they had no records of Tiger Eye Pl or Tiger Eye Pl Media Ltd.
Against the foregoing background, the three Plaintiffs issued an amended
writ of summons on 1st March 2016 seeking from this court th