Another High Court judge cited in the judicial bribery scandal has filed a writ at the High Court challenging the legality of impeachment proceedings against him.

Justice Mohammed Habib Logoh cited Tiger Eye PI, the Chief Justice Georgina Theodora Wood and the Attorney-General, Marietta Brew Appiah Oppong as defendants in his suit.

Justice Logoh and 11 other High Court judges were captured on video allegedly taking bribes to influence their verdict on cases before them.

Investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas and Tiger Eye PI compiled what they say is evidence of bribery in the judiciary. He subsequently petitioned the President in respect of the 12 High Court judges and the Chief Justice in respect of some 22 lower court judges and about a hundred other judicial service staff.

Impeachment proceedings have been instituted against the High Court judges, two of whom went on retirement after the investigations were completed.

The remaining ten are mounting legal challenges against the proceedings, arguing they have been instituted in breach of the law.

Justice Habib Logoh is demand total of ten reliefs from the High Court. He wants:

1. A declaration that the purported audio-visual recordings and transcripts in which the Plaintiff was allegedly captured is unlawMl and the same 
amounts to entrapment; 

2. A Declaration that the Directive given through the 3ro Defendant for the 2nd Defendant io use the audio-visual recordings and transcripts as a basis 
to commence impeachment proceedings against the P ain% is null and void and of no legal consequence whatsoever; 

3. A Declaration that the action taken by the 2nd Defendant pursuant to the said directive is equally null and void;

4. A Declaration that the 2nd Defendant has no right to violate existing law or legal right of the Plaintiff under any colour;

5. A Declaration that any purported immunity granted by the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant, its Chief Executive Officer (Anas Aremeyaw Anas) is a 
nullify;

6. A Declaration that the continuous leakage of the contents of the audio-visual recordings and transcripts by the Defendants to media houses and 
social platforms is in breach of Plaintiff's rights; 

7. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its Chief Executive Officer, workmen, privies, and agents howsoever described 
from public screening of the said illegal audio-visual recordings;

8. An order or perpetual injunction restraining the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from relying on the said audio-visual recordings and transcripts in any 
proceedings howsoever described. 

9. Cost including legal fees and, 10. Any other order(s) that the Honourable Court may deem fit to make. 

More soon.