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