High Court judge, Justice Paul Uuter Dery has accused the Court of Appeal judge of bias after he dismissed his contempt case against Anas and four others.

He says Justice Gertrude Torkonoo exhibited bias or a real likelihood of bias “when she dismissed [his] Motion on Notice for Committal for Contempt” suit.

The embattled judge is fighting attempts to remove him from the bench after investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas petitioned the president to remove him for misconduct.

Anas’ Tiger Eye PI filmed Justice Dery and 33 others allegedly trading justice for pecuniary and other material benefits including goats.

He has filed an avalanche cases both at the High Court and Supreme Court seeking various reliefs.

In one of such cases filed at the High Court, Justice cited Anas, Media Foundation for West Africa boss, Sulemana Braimah, Starr FM's Kwabena Anokye Adisi and managers of the Accra International Conference Centre for contempt.

He wanted them committed to prison for what he called conduct disrespectful of the court.

He argued although the persons cited were aware of his application seeking to injunct the screening of Anas’ audio visual recordings, they engaged in acts that were prejudicial to his case by going ahead to facilitate the broadcast of the visual evidence of the alleged bribery.

After the ruling, the embattled judge and his lawyers expressed surprise and served notice that they would appeal.

Now they are accusing Justice Torkonoo of not only bias but also of acting in breach of “the audi alteram partem principle of natural justice through her failure to give [Justice Dery] prior notice” before hearing the matter and dismissing it.

He wants an order from the Supreme Court restraining Justice Torkonoo from hearing the substantive case pending before her.

The Court of Appeal judge was selected by Chief Justice Georgina Theodora Wood to hear all matter relating to the judicial bribery scandal.

Justice Dery doubts that the judge exercised her discretion to hear his contempt case without notice to him fairly.

To that extent, he does not want her to preside over his substantive case in which he is arguing that the audio visual recordings were done in violation of his right to privacy.