GovernanceHeadlines

Court dismisses Saanie Daara’s privacy case against Anas

The Human Rights Court in Accra presided over by Justice Nicholas Abodakpi has dismissed Ibrahim Saanie Daara’s privacy case against Anas Aremeyaw Anas.

Sannie Daara brought an application before the court after he was captured in the Number12 documentary by Anas and his Tiger Eye  crew in which  Sannie was seen taking a bribe to influence the selection of a player to the senior football team, the Black Stars.

Mr. Daara, who until the Number 12 documentary, was the deputy General Secretary of the Ghana Football Association and director of Communications asked the court to declare the secret recording of his conduct as a violation of his right to privacy under article 18 (2) of the Constitution.

READ ALSO: How bankers withdraw and spend dead people’s money- Bank manager reveals

He also prayed the court to order Anas and Tiger Eye PI to cease forthwith the broadcast and publicity of the Number12 documentary and cause all copies to be removed from all electronic platforms as well as a perpetual injunction restraining Anas and Tiger Eye from any future secret recording of his conduct.

saani Daara

But lawyers for Anas argued that the secret recording and publication were justified in the public interest. That by not rejecting the cash offered and further directing the Tiger Eye crew to hand over the money to the intermediary, Sannie Daara assumed ownership of the bribe money and thereby facilitated the corrupt scheme.

READ ALSO: Angry husband kills rival for “chopping” his wife in the washroom

The judge upheld the arguments by lawyers for Anas and Tiger Eye. In dismissing Saanie’s suit, Justice Abodakpi said the meeting between Sannie and Tiger Eye in which he was recorded was not a private communication.

He further said Sannie Daara breached his own organization’s code of ethics and that of FIFA by putting himself in a compromising situation.

The judge said in coming to that conclusion, he did a balancing act between Sannie Daara’s right to privacy as enshrined in article 18 (2) and the right of the public to know.

He also noted that although GFA was a private organization per its incorporation, it performs public functions, thus the public has a strong interest in what GFA does.

The court awarded costs of ¢10,000.00 in favour of Anas and Tiger Eye PI.

 

Myjoyonline

Tags

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Close