Justice Gilbert Ayisi Addo, one of the 34 judges implicated in a judicial corruption scandal by investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas, has filed a suit at the Supreme Court seeking to clear his name and declare his suspension null and void.

Justice Ayisi Addo filed the case on Monday November 16, 2015, citing Mr Anas, his Tiger Eye PI firm, the Chief Justice and the Attorney General as defendants.

The Plaintiff is seeking redress against the Defendants jointly and severally in connection with 32 reliefs wherefore he claims the following:

1. A declaration that the 1st Defendant has no capacity to file a petition for his removal from office owing to the fact that the 1st Defendant is not a registered entity and therefore has no legal personality.

2. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is not licensed to carry out private investigations under the laws of Ghana.

3. A declaration that the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof were fraudulently and unlawfully obtained by the 1st Defendant.

4. A declaration that the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof constitute an entrapment of the Plaintiff which is intolerable in law.

5. A declaration that the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof constitute a breach and transgress all rules of justice, fair play and equity.

6. A declaration that the allegations contained in the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof remain unproven and do not amount to proof of the commission of any crime by the Plaintiff.

7. A declaration that the public screening of the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof was to prejudice the case of the Plaintiff on the allegations of bribery and corruption leveled against him by the 1st Defendant.

8. A declaration that the public screening of the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof was unlawful and unconstitutional.

9. A declaration that any purported immunity granted by the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant, its Chief Executive Officer, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, its privies, agents and assigns is unlawful and of no effect.

10. A declaration that the confidentiality attached to impeachment proceedings of Justices of the Superior Court which extends to documents and other relevant materials including audio recordings and the transcripts thereof has been breached by the Defendants.

11. A declaration that the 1st Defendant is not a whistleblower under the definition of the law.

12. A declaration that the 1st Defendant’s act of secretly recording the Plaintiff constitutes a violation of the Plaintiff’s right to privacy and therefore unlawful and unconstitutional.

13. A declaration that the 1st Defendant carefully and maliciously pieced together the audio visual recordings and the transcripts thereof in a manner to incriminate the Plaintiff on the allegations of bribery and corruption.

14. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant acting in her administrative capacity under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution is not a court of competent jurisdiction.

15. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant acting in her administrative capacity under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution cannot make a prima facie finding of bribery and corruption against the Plaintiff contrary to section 244 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, (1960), Act 29 and Rule 2 of the CCJMG.

16. A declaration that the prima facie findings made against the Plaintiff by the 2nd Defendant on account of the petition filed by the 1st Defendant is unlawful and unconstitutional.

17. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant is under a constitutional obligation only to determine a prima facie case against the Plaintiff based solely on the allegations contained in the petition filed by the 1st Defendant.

18. A declaration that the ruling attached to the 2nd Defendant’s letter dated 5th October, 2015, addressed to the Plaintiff making a prima facie finding against the Plaintiff on alleged acts of misbehavior arising out of alleged “ex parte discussions with one party on a case pending before him contrary to Rule 3(7) and 4(A) of the CCJMG” is wrong, unconstitutional, null and void on account of the fact that the said allegations were never contained in the petition filed by the 1st Defendant.

19. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant breached the principle of audi alteram partem when she made prima facie findings on the allegations of ex parte discussions with court personnel on any case pending before him without granting the Plaintiff prior notice of the charge and an opportunity to be heard in his defence.

20. A declaration that the purported suspension of the Plaintiff by the President of the Republic of Ghana on account of the prima facie findings made by the 2nd Defendant is null and void.

21. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant breached the principle of audi alteram partem when she made prima facie findings on the allegations of ex parte discussions with one party on any case pending before him and without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.

22. An order revoking the suspension of the Plaintiff by the President of the Republic of Ghana on account of the prima facie findings made by the 2nd Defendant.

23. An order restraining the 2nd Defendant, her privies, agents and assigns from publishing the contents of the illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual recordings.

24. An order prohibiting the 1st Defendant, as the primary custodian and copyright holder to the audio visual recordings, its agents, privies and assigns from releasing same to the international media and various social media outlets.

25. An order restraining the 2nd Defendant from relying on the contents of the illegally or unlawfully procured audio visual recordings.

26. A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from carrying out any public screening of the said illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual recordings.

27. A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from ever publishing or causing to be published the content of the said illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual recordings through any media platform howsoever described including social media.

28. A perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant, her privies, assigns and whosoever from carrying out any form of enquiry however or whatsoever described against the Plaintiff founded on the contents of the Petition or the audio visual recordings submitted by the 1st Defendant.

29. A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from ever publishing or causing to be published the content of the said illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual recordings through any media platform howsoever described including social media.

30. General damages against the 1st Defendant for the invasion of the Plaintiff’s privacy.

31. Cost including legal fees.

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

DATED IN ACCRA THIS 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015.