A Human Rights Court in Accra has dismissed a case by Rev Kusi Boateng, Secretary to the Board of Trustees of the National Cathedral Secretariat, stopping Member of Parliament for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa from making talks and social media posts about him.
The Court in the judgement further awarded cost of GHS10,000.00 cost against Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng.
The lawmaker in a Facebook post detailing the outcome of the court ruling said, “this is the second time cost has been awarded against Kusi Boateng/Adu Gyamfi. I dedicate this latest legal victory to the masses who have kept me resolute with their prayers and support for transparent and accountable governance. I am indebted to my outstanding legal team.”
Read full post below:
The Human Rights Court has today dismissed Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng/Kwabena Adu Gyamfi’s application which sought to restrain me.
The court’s judgment was emphatic that my parliamentary oversight had unraveled two distinct identities in conduct which borders on criminality and therefore the application was dismissed for lack of capacity and locus standi.
The judge awarded cost of GHS10,000.00 against Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng/Kwabena Adu Gyamfi. This is the second time cost has been awarded against Kusi Boateng/Adu Gyamfi.
I dedicate this latest legal victory to the masses who have kept me resolute with their prayers and support for transparent and accountable governance.
I am indebted to my outstanding legal team.
2 down; 1 more to go in his defamation suit.
For God and Country. Ghana Firs.
Summary of Judgment
It has been proven that Kwabena Adu Gyamfi and Victor Kusi Boateng are two separate identities concurrently used by the Applicant and 1st Respondent is justified in his claims that, Victor Kusi Boateng is not an alias but another separate identity altogether.
The way the two identities were used does not suggest a simple case of two different names, but rather two independent and totally separate identities to conceal applicant’s dealings in a manner that was not obvious, until the investigations and publications of 1st Respondent.
Applicant’s assertion that the use of two names in the manner he has done is not a crime under our laws is misconceived, as the two identities were used in a pattern of duplicity depicting a lack of transparency and this conduct borders on criminality.
The Application was sought to be enforced under Article 33(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which requires an Applicant’s personal interest in the matter to confer locus standi.
From the record, it is not clear which of the two separate identities seeks to enforce its fundamental human rights by this suit. And once there is a clear case of double identity presented and proven before this court, this Application is dismissed for lack of capacity and locus standi.
Costs of GHC10,000 awarded against the Applicant in favour of the 1st Respondent.
