Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, Member of Parliament for North Tongu, has expressed joy following his victory in the lawsuit brought against him by Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng/Kwabena Adu Gyamfi’.
The man of God filed an application to prevent the MP from conducting his investigation into him and the controversies surrounding his identification.
In its ruling, the court dismissed the case, finding that the MP’s parliamentary supervision had revealed two distinct identities in conduct bordering on criminality.
The application was likewise denied by the court due to a lack of capacity and locus standi.
To mark the occasion, the MP dedicated the triumph to Ghanaians and his legal team.
He said “I dedicate this latest legal victory to the masses who have kept me resolute with their prayers and support for transparent and accountable governance
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.”
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.