salary for the period upon which they were on interdiction. That this position was communicated to the Judges through letters dated 8th and 11th January, 2016, by the Council in compliance with the provisions of Regulation 8 of the Labor Regulations on the conditions of service of employee Justices. That the council further suspended the payment of allowances of the Applicants’ with the exclusion of their rent pursuant to Article 158 (2) of its Constitution. 30. The Respondent further state that the 2nd and 3rd Applicants then commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Ghana challenging the legality and constitutionality of the actions taken by the Judicial Council and same was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 31. The Respondent claim that in an attempt to investigate the allegations which was now of public knowledge and interest, the Director-General of the Criminal Investigations of the Ghana Police Service invited the Applicants given that bribery and corruption is an offence in Ghana. While the 2nd and 3rd Applicants wrote a protest letter against the said investigations, the 1st Applicant caused a writ to be issued in the High Court challenging the validity of any such investigation by the Ghana Police Service. However, the application was struck out on grounds that the Court cannot stop the police from investigating a matter where it has reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed. 32. The Respondent further stated that in another writ, the Applicants challenged the legal capacity of Tiger Eye PI to investigate the subject matter of the petition on the grounds that it is not a legal person. This application was dismissed by the Court on grounds that the Applicants’ submission that Tiger Eye PI is an unincorporated body and therefore incompetent to submit a petition to the President is not only disingenuous, but also a ruse to sway the Supreme Court from the real issues. 33. The Respondent stated that in yet another Application before the Supreme Court, the Applicants argue that upon a true and proper interpretation of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, the Chief Justice lacks the jurisdiction to enquire into the petition as the said petition made criminal allegations against the Applicants. That this application is still pending before the Court. The Respondent further states that 11