Rev Kusi Boateng's ‘purported’ process servers not from Judicial Service- Ablakwa on contempt application

Member of Parliament for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa has stated that the injunction suit filed by Executive Council member of the National Cathedral Board, Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng was served on him in breach of a November 7, 2022 circular by the Chief Justice.

He notes that contrary to the above, his search has revealed that the process servers who purported to serve him, do not belong to the Judicial Service.

CONTEMPT

The MP has been cited for contempt by Rev Kusi Boateng for allegedly throwing and kicking a court process at the premises of Metro TV after the latter sued and secured an injunction against him.

However, Mr. Ablakwa in his affidavit in opposition signed by Thaddeus Sory of Sory@Law notes that the purported service on him is unconstitutional because he had explained to the process server that he was on his way to Parliament to attend some business.

Also, he says that the illegal and ill-contrived manner in which he was purportedly served, undermines the application before the court.

Added to the above, Mr. Ablakwa notes that the supposed bailiff exceeded his powers by engaging in unconstitutional and irregular service of the process on him.

Contrary to the viral video footage, he indicates that a closer look at it will rather ‘leave the court in no doubt whatsoever that it is a monstrous falsehood’ that he threw away the processes purportedly served on him.

Additionally, Mr. Okudzeto says that all he did was to move the processes which were supposedly left close as possible to him, away from his car.

He thus affirms that none of the acts alleged against him by the applicant is punishable by the court as contempt because his actions did not interfere, impede or obstruct service on him.

The Allegation

The MP has alleged a ‘scandalous’ transfer of GHS 2.6 million cash from the National Cathedral Secretariat to JNS Talent Centre Limited whose directors are said to be Johannes Eshun, Sheila Eshun, and Kwabena Adu Gyamfi who remains a mystery figure.

It added that per his investigation, the above mystery figure is Rev Kusi Boateng who is alleged to be using multiple passports and multiple identification cards with different names and different dates of birth.

Additionally, the MP notes that the Pastor’s Diplomatic Passport issued to him on November 25, 2021, rather bears the name Kwabena Adu Gyamfi and not Rev Victor Kusi Boateng and has two Taxpayer Identification Numbers.

Owing to the above, Mr. Ablakwa petitioned CHRAJ on January 16 also petitioned CHRAJ to investigate the matter, in addition to other demands that Rev Kusi Boateng should resign from the Board of the National Cathedral. 

Subsequently, on February 3, 2023, the National Cathedral Council member sued the MP and duly secured an injunction against him from making public disclosures of his private information and those relating to property he owns.

Substantive suit

In his substantive suit in which he is suing the MP for defamation, he maintains that statements made by Mr. Ablakwa are “not only misleading but calculated to injure his reputation." 

He also argues that public disclosures by Mr. Ablakwa of his personal private information are in breach of his rights to privacy under article 18 of the Constitution.

Again he avers that the “unlawful publication” of his private information by Mr. Ablakwa has exposed him to the risk of identity theft and internet fraud since Mr. Ablakwa's actions have caused his personal information to be published worldwide. 

He is thus seeking the following reliefs:

1. An order directed at the Defendant to publish on the same platform that he published the defamatory words as well as a full page of the Daily Graphic Newspaper, on six consecutive occasions over 6 months, an unqualified retraction and an apology;

2. An order for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, assigns, and servants from further publishing any defamatory words against the Plaintiff;

3 General Damages for defamation;

4.Costs; and any other order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit.