Indicted judges and magistrates files for interlocutory order

JudgesSome of the indicted judges and magistrates implicated in the corruption tape have filed a motion on notice for an interlocutory order of injunction restraining the Judicial Council from continuing with the proceedings.

The order filed at the Fast Track High Court is seeking to restrain the defendant (Judicial Council), whether it acts by itself or through the Committee instituted by the defendant.

A writ of summons issued by Charles K. Bentum, an Accra Lawyer on behalf of the 14 plaintiffs said that any proceedings for the removal of those persons for stated misbehavior are regulated by Acts (C.A 10) and L.I 319.

The plaintiffs said even though the 1992 constitution empowered the Chief Justice and the Judicial Council to remove persons holding judicial offices on certain specific grounds including misbehavior, such removal must be in accordance with due process.

It said each of them, being a pensionable officer, could not be removed from office as a result of summary proceedings without being convicted of the criminal acts alleged against each of them.

The plaintiffs said the law provided that disciplinary proceedings against judicial office holders be conducted by a single judge of the High Court or some other judicial officer appointed for that purpose by the Chief Justice.

They said the committee instituted by the Judicial Council to conduct disciplinary proceedings against them has no legal basis.

The plaintiffs explained that unless, restrained by a court, the defendant’s illegal Disciplinary Committee would continue to conduct the illegal disciplinary proceedings against each of them, which are likely to lead to their removal from office under rather dubious and disturbing circumstances.

“That we have already suffered and continue to suffer grave hardship, loss and inconvenience as a result of illegal conduct of the defendant’s and its illegal committee,” the writ said.

The plaintiffs said they would suffer further hardship, loss and inconvenience if their instant application is refused, which hardship, loss and inconvenience could not be adequately compensated for in damages.

“That the defendant stands to suffer no hardship, loss and inconvenience if our instant application is granted,” they added.

Source: GNA

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.