The Human Rights Court on Thursday, July 13, dismissed an application filed by Reverend Victor Kusi Boateng which sought to restrain Member of Parliament for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa from citing him during discussions of the National cathedral project.
After the MP was captured on camera kicking court papers meant to serve him in connection with a defamation claim launched against him, Reverend Victor Kusi Boateng’s attorneys filed the contempt charges.
The NDC lawmaker was sued by Reverend Kusi Boateng for writing articles implying that he was using a false identity and engaging in a conflict of interest because he was reportedly using the name Kwabena Adu Gyamfi.
In a Facebook post, Mr Ablakwa noted that “the court’s judgment was emphatic that my parliamentary oversight had unraveled two distinct identities in conduct which borders on criminality.”
According to him, the application was dismissed for “lack of capacity and locus standi.”
The judge awarded the cost of GHS10,000.00 against Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng.
Mr Ablakwa says he dedicates 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,” he added.
However, there is one more impending defamation suit against Mr Ablakwa.
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.