He will be in court for the first time since the hearing started to testify as well as be cross-examined by the counsel of the accused judges.
About 180 officials of the Judicial Service have been caught on camera allegedly taking bribes and extorting money from litigants.
Thirty-four of the suspected culprits are said to be judges at the High, the Circuit and the District courts.
Some of the culprits have also been linked to sex scandals in a three-hour edited video emanating from a two-year investigation into corrupt practices in the Judicial Service.
Anas sent the two petitions: one dated 31st August and addressed to the president; the other on 2nd September 2015 to the Chief Justice. The journalist in accordance with Article 146 asked the president to initiate impeachment proceedings against the High Court judges he says took bribes to pervert justice.
Twenty-two of the judges have been suspended while 12 high court judges were expected to file their written responses to the petition by close of Monday, September 14.
Meanwhile, one of the High Court judges cited in the judicial bribery scandal has filed a suit against the investigative journalist.
Justice Paul Dery, one of 12 High Court judges captured on video allegedly receiving bribes to compromise on administering justice, in a writ filed at the Fast Track division of the High Court is seeking a total of 17 reliefs.
The topmost being “A declaration that the 1st Defendant (Tiger Eye PI) obtained the contents of the audio-visual recording unlawfully.”
The writ is further seeking the following reliefs:
“A declaration that the 1st Defendant’s act of secretly recording private discussions with the Plaintiff constituted a violation of the Plaintiff’s right to privacy;
“A declaration that any purported immunity granted by the 3rd Defendant (Attorney-General) to the 1st Defendant, its Chief Executive Officer, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, its privies, agents and assigns is unlawful and of no effect;
“A declaration that the 2nd Defendant (Chief Justice), her privies, agents, assigns and successors cannot rely on the contents of the illegally or unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings;
“A declaration that the 2nd Defendant (Chief Justice) cannot arrive at a fair determination as to whether a prima facie case has been established against the Plaintiff by relying on the content of the Petition filed by the 1st Defendant;
“An order restraining the 2nd Defendant, her privies, agents and assigns from publishing the contents of the illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual
“An order restraining the 1 Defendant, its privies and assigns from carrying out their intended public screening of the said illegally and unlawfully procured
audio visual recordings at the Accra International Conference Centre on the 22nd and 23rd of September, 2015;
“An order restraining the 2nd Defendant from relying on the contents of the illegally or unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings;
“A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from carrying out any public screening of the said illegally and
unlawfully procured audio-visual recordings;
“A perpetual injunction restraining the 1st Defendant, its privies, assigns and whosoever from ever publishing or causing to be published the content of the
said illegally and unlawfully procured audio visual recordings through any media platform howsoever described including social media;
“A perpetual injunction restraining the instant 2nd Defendant, her privies, assigns and whosoever from carrying out any form of enquiry however or whatsoever described against the Plaintiff founded on the contents of the petition or the audio visual recordings submitted by the 1st Defendant.
“General damages against the 1 Defendant for the invasion of the plaintiff’s privacy.”