Kofi Adams sues 3 NPP members
Days after the police absolved him of any wrongdoing in the ownership of his seized vehicles, the National Organiser of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), Mr Kofi Adams, has sued three members of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) for claiming that he stole the said vehicles.
Advertisement
Mr Adams has turned to the High Court and is seeking a compensation of GH¢1 million each from the three NPP members, made up of Deputy General Secretary, Nana Obiri Boahen; the Brong Ahafo Regional Youth Organiser of the party, Kwame Baffoe (aka Abronye DC), and a member of the NPP’s Communications Team, David Asante.
Character and integrity
In the suit filed by his lawyers, A – Partners @ Law, Mr Adams made reference to specific comments made by the defendants, which he said had injured his “character and integrity”.
One of the comments attributed to Nana Obiri Boahen on Asempa FM’s Ekosii Sen afternoon programme on February 3, 2017, quoted him as saying; “Why return those vehicles to Kofi Adams? … You know what, as we speak, the chassis number of … vehicle has been changed. It is a serious thing. A very serious thing. ... So Kofi Adams cannot tell us … Unless Kofi Adams tells all of us that he bought the vehicle from Stelin Automotive and Trading Company Ltd. But why was the chassis number changed? … This is government car that has been stolen … Government car that has been stolen and I have found out. I am saying that authoritatively … There is clear evidence the cars are stolen.”
Again, the writ quoted Mr Asante as stating on Multi TV/Joy FM’s Newsfile programme on February 11, 2017 that: “I have seen one of the pickups either engraved or embossed chassis number tampered. I saw it … Kofi Adams … I saw it myself.”
Besides, the plaintiff mentioned Mr Baffoe as having said on UTV on February 17, 2017 in Twi thus: “There is evidence that sandpaper was used to erase the chassis of the Nissan … How come one vehicle has two chassis numbers?
Having taken a very serious view of the allegations against him, Mr Adams said; “The defendants alleged that their defamatory statements meant and were naturally and ordinarily understood by right–thinking members of society to mean plaintiff was a dishonest person and a forger who had engaged in or colluded with some others of said characterisation to perpetrate fraud on the state.”
He also stated that the defendants, by their statements, saw him as “a criminal who had been caught committing the crime of stealing or doing so with certain collaborators of his characterisation.”
Reliefs
It is against the “injury” to his reputation that Mr Adams is seeking eight reliefs, including “an order for an unconditional retraction and an apology for the said defamatory comments/broadcast/publication, doing so separately and in the Daily Graphic newspaper and for same to be given equal prominence and the complained comment/broadcast/publication within 14 days from the day of judgement.”
He is also seeking an order that the contents of the apology be subjected to his approval, and for the defendants to personally and separately read out on all media networks on which they made those statements within 14 days from the day of judgement.
Again, Mr Adams is seeking an order for perpetual injunction restraining defendants from any further comments on the issue before the court.
The plaintiff is also seeking general damages for defamation; aggravated or exemplary damages for the malicious defamation; costs, including legal fees, and further or other reliefs.