“…When investigating, you didn’t go to hide somewhere to look at or to screen a scene when a judge is seen taking money from somebody, but you instigated the thing yourself,” he argued.
Speaking on Eyewitness News, lawyer Bright Akwetey also backed calls to cite as contempt, the decision by the Accra International Conference Centre (AICC) and the Tiger Eye PI team to publicly screen the video documentary that captures some judges allegedly accepting bribes.
The investigative piece produced by Anas Aremeyaw Anas was premiered at the AICC on Tuesday and Wednesday, despite a court notice served on the management of the conference facility that sought to put an injunction on the use of the premises for the public screening of the video.
But Mr. Akwetey insists the parties involved ought to have respected the process currently before the court.
“If you have gone to lure the judge into taking money, (which I do not support), you don’t go and show to the general public especially when you have been served with a process to stop you from screening it.
“They did not need an order of injunction to stop them from screening it, the process having been handed to you, was enough to stop you from screening it,” he added.
Lawyer Akwetey further described the development as unfortunate; as he maintained it had the potential to ruin the reputation of the implicated judges, the judiciary and the country in general.
The Attorney General has, under the whistleblowers Act, granted immunity to Anas for the exposé on the judiciary. A decision Mr. Akwetey says he will challenge as he queried the basis for granting the immunity.
“If you are a whistleblower, you will not expose yourself as I did it, he is not entitled to any immunity, I will challenge the AG for that immunity granted,” he stated.
Meanwhile, sitting by the judicial committee of inquiry mandated to establish the truth in the allegations levelled against the judges and magistrates hit a snag on Wednesday, after the eight other judges under investigations staged a walkout during the sitting.
They explained that the decision was to enable them support the class action taken by 14 other judges currently in court seeking that the committee be suspended since they described their work as unconstitutional.