The Human Rights Court has dismissed Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng aka Kwabena Adu Gyamfi’s application which sought to restrain the Member of Parliament for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa from further publications on him.
The court’s judgment was emphatic that Ablakwa’s oversight had unraveled two distinct identities in conduct that borders on criminality and therefore the application was dismissed for lack of capacity and
locus standi.
The judge awarded a cost of GH¢10,000 against Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng aka Kwabena Adu Gyamfi. This is the second time cost has been awarded against Kusi Boateng.
The applicant Kusi Boateng approached the court to cause the respondent Ablakwa to stop making critical publications about him.
Kusi Boateng who doubles as Secretary to the Board of Trustees of the National Cathedral, has come under allegations of conflict of interest and double identity leveled against him by Ablakwa.
Rev Kusi Boateng on Wednesday, February 1, 2023, filed an order of injunction against the MP restraining him from further publications on him.
The court in its ruling on Thursday, July 13, 2023, said the Applicant’s (Kusi Boateng) 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.
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 the 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 the applicant’s dealings in a manner that was not obvious, until the investigations and publications of 1st Respondent.
The 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 GH¢10,000 awarded against the Applicant in favour of the 1st Respondent.
Source: