transcripts of various discussions and other acts that allegedly took place between the petitioner, the judges concerned and the Court staff which the petitioner produced in support of the petition, as evidence. The 3rd Applicant subsequently caused a writ of summons to be issued at the High Court against the petitioner, Tiger Eye PI and 8 others contesting the validity of the determination of a prima facie case against him. 4. The Applicants further averred that on 16th December, 2015 the Judicial Council of Ghana at its meeting, having deliberated on said petition decided to pay the Applicants half of their monthly salaries while suspending the payment of all allowances. They stated that they were never invited and hence made no presentation at the meeting of the judicial Council. That on receipt of said decision, the 1st and 3rd Applicants commenced proceedings at the Supreme Court challenging the legality and constitutionality of the actions taken by the Judicial Council and same was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 5. The Applicants aver that even though the Chief Executive Officer of Tiger Eye PI one Anas Aremeyaw Anas disclosed via the social media, its identity as a company registered in accordance with the laws of Ghana and licensed by law to carry out private investigations, a search conducted at the Registry of Companies of Ghana revealed that the petitioner is not a registered company in Ghana. Rather, Tiger Eye PI Media Limited was found with Anas Aremeyaw Anas as its sole shareholder. The search further disclosed that Tiger Eye PI Media Ltd became defunct in September, 2012 and was replaced by Stallion Tiger Company Limited which was incorporated on 12th September, 2012. 6. Based on the search report, and in the light of the fact that the Defendants in Suit No. J1/9/2016 (Tiger Eye PI, the Chief Justice and the Attorney-General) referred to the petitioner in their Statement of defense as Anas Aremeyaw Anas and not Tiger Eye PI, the Applicants instituted another action at the Supreme Court challenging the legal capacity of the Petitioner, Tiger Eye PI, to submit a petition to the President seeking their removal from office. That on 27th October, 2016, the Supreme Court gave the judgment wherein it noted that there was evidence to 3

Select target paragraph3