IBRAHIM SANNIE DAARA VS ANAS AREMEYAW ANAS & 2 ORS

a) BACKGROUND This action had been initiated on or about 04-07-2018, with a motion for enforcement of the Fundamental Human Rights of Applicant.

Order 67 of the High Court, Civil Procedure rules 2004, C. I. 47/04 has been cited as well as Article 33 of the 1992 Constitution.

There is an affidavit in support of the motion, subsequently a supplementary affidavit in support has also been filed on 10-10-2018. There is a written submission filed by counsel for Applicant on the record.

The Respondents have filed an affidavit in answer.

The relevant process is the affidavit filed on 22-02-2019 in pursuant to leave granted in that regard.

There is a written submission filed on behalf of the Respondents as well.

b) RELEFS SOUGHT 1. A declaration that the secret recording by the 1st and 2nd Respondents and or their agents as well as the subsequent broadcast of same amount to a violation of the Applicant’s right to PRIVACY of his communication which is guaranteed by clause 2 of Article 18 of the Constitution.

2. An order directed at the 1st and 2nd Respondents and or their agents to cease forthwith the broadcast and publicity of the portions of the recording relating to the Applicant and cause to be removed from all electronic media platforms any parts of the secretly recorded communication containing images and audio of the Applicant.

3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents and or their agents, assigns privies and whosoever is acting for them secretly recording any communication with the Applicant.

4. Legal cost. 5. Any other orders. (c ) Order 67 rules 5 of C. I. 47/04, requires that, the action be set down for hearing and in setting it down, the triable issues invariably must be stated.

That step was skipped but the application was moved accordingly.

What constitute the triable issues could be deduced from the facts, reliefs sought and legal submissions filed.

I will put down the following as the triable issues around which the judgment will be focused.

i. Whether or not the secret recording and subsequent broadcast of the communication held between/among Applicant and Respondents and their agents constitute violation of Applicant’s rights.

Whether or not the secret recording and subsequent broadcast of the communication held between/among, Applicant and Respondents at the Accra sport stadium constitute violation of the Applicant’s right to the privacy of his communication.

Whether or not the acts and condu