Prominent legal expert, Martin Kpebu, has strongly criticized broadcaster Paul Adom-Otchere for alleging that he stole a book co-authored with lawyer Fred Kusim Awindaogo, titled the ‘Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana.’
During an interview with the media on October 18, 2023, Kpebu vehemently refuted Adom-Otchere’s baseless accusations and asserted that the broadcaster displayed a lack of understanding by making such theft claims on live television.
“He said I have stolen somebody’s intellectual property; that is false. Look, I have not stolen anybody’s intellectual property. He (Adom-Otchere) didn’t understand what he was saying. When you say stealing, stealing is a criminal offence.
“To accuse somebody of a crime when there is no crime at all, itself is a big problem. It shows that he doesn’t understand what he was dealing with. That case is a civil case, so there is no element of stealing there,” he said.
Kpebu clarified that the reason he brought a complaint against Fred was because he believed Fred had not written the correct portion of the book, forcing Kpebu to rewrite almost everything.
He continued by saying that the court decided that the two of them possessed rights to the book and that Adom-Otchere was merely spreading misinformation.
“We went to court and the court said no; he has also written some so it is sufficient… the court decided that Fred has also contributed, so in that case, Fred can use the manuscript, and I can also use it. I have not stolen; it is not like he wrote the book and I’m going away with it.
“…the plaintiff went to court that they should collect the books from me and give him the manuscript. He lost that one. The court said no, Fred; you can use it, Martin too can use it. So, it is just propaganda Paul is interested in… Did the court say, Martin, you stole the boy’s book and so give it back to him? No!” he exclaimed.
Background:
High Court Judge Justice Kwaku Ackaah-Boafo, who holds a position as a Justice of the Court of Appeal, rendered a significant ruling that prohibits private legal practitioner and political commentator Martin Kpebu from claiming exclusive ownership of an unpublished book entitled “Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana.”
The court decision, reported by Asaaseradio.com, favored the applicant in the case, Fred Kusim Awindaogo, also a private practice lawyer. The case, bearing number GJ 429 2020, is titled “Fred Kusim Awindaogo (plaintiff) versus Martin Luther Kpebu (1st defendant) and Josephine Tekpertey (2nd defendant).”
In a judgment delivered on April 5, 2023, Justice Ackaah-Boafo highlighted the central dispute between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, both lawyers, concerning the ownership and copyright of the book, “Annotated Evidence Law of Ghana.”
Although the plaintiff initiated the project and invited the 1st defendant to participate, Martin Luther Kpebu, the 1st defendant, contended that the plaintiff lacked the intellectual capacity to be the book’s author. Kpebu claimed that he had essentially rewritten the entirety of the plaintiff’s work, asserting that the final book was his exclusive creation rather than a collaborative effort.
Justice Ackaah-Boafo elucidated the key concerns, emphasizing:”In my view, this court is called upon to deal with such issues as copyright and the allegation of breach of the agreement executed by the parties, and the allegation of bad faith by the 1st defendant (Martin Luther Kpebu).”
The plaintiff, Fred Kusim Awindaogo, presented 12 claims to the court in his lawsuit, including:
A declaration affirming that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are joint or co-authors of the book, tentatively titled “Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana,” based on their agreement.
A declaration asserting that the 1st defendant’s effort to exclude the plaintiff’s name from the work is unfair, dishonest, and in bad faith, constituting a breach of their agreement.
An order of perpetual injunction preventing the 1st defendant from claiming exclusive authorship of the book.
An order of perpetual injunction preventing the 1st and 2nd defendants from publishing the book without recognizing the plaintiff as a co-author.An order of perpetual injunction preventing the defendants from distributing the book without acknowledging the plaintiff’s co-authorship.
Justice Ackaah-Boafo’s court granted all five of these claims as requested by the plaintiff. The court determined that the book, “Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana,” is a collaborative work of both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, and they are co-owners and co-authors of the book, with the final manuscript to be published under their joint names in accordance with the terms of their agreement; furthermore, if the 1st defendant chooses not to publish the book jointly, the plaintiff is free to publish it independently.