The Human Rights Court on Thursday, 13 July 2023 dismissed Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng/Kwabena Adu Gyamfi’s application which sought to restrain the MP for North Tongu Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa from talking about him.

In February this year, National Cathedral Board Secretary Victor Kusi Boateng, also known as Kwabena Adu Gyamfi, secured a 10-day gagging order from the court against North Tongu MP who has made several exposés against the reverend minister in connection with the cathedral project. 

Mr Ablakwa, thus, for 10 days could not make public, any “disclosures of private documents, correspondence, communication and property belonging to the applicant”.

Rev Kusi Boateng, who is the head pastor of Power Chapel Worldwide International sought to further gag the lawmaker but the court’s judgment was emphatic on Thursday that the MP’s 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.

Mr Ablakwa who shared the court ruling on his Facebook page dedicated this latest legal victory to the masses who he said have kept resolute with their prayers and support for transparent and accountable governance.

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.