Hearing of contempt application against Kwahu Omanhene set for January 20

A High Court in Nkawkaw will on Friday, January 20, hear a contempt application against Daasebre Akuamoah Agyapong II, Omanhene of Kwahu Traditional Area, and one Isaac Bright Botchwey over the launch of a ‘disputed book’ on the Kwahu State.

Joined in the suit are the Kwahu Traditional Council and the National Commission on Culture.

The applicants Opanyin Kwaku Baah, a resident of McCarthy Hill and Opanyin Kwabena Adjei, are praying the court to commit the respondents to prison for willfully interfering with the fair trial and undermining the administration of justice. The applicants are also praying for further orders as the court may seem to “meet upon the grounds contained in the accompanying affidavit.”

Opanyin Kwaku Baah, in an affidavit of Support backing his application for an order for committal for contempt, said he instituted an action against the respondents on April 11, 2022. This was in a suit titled ‘Opanyin Kwaku Baah and one other, versus Kwahu Traditional Council and four others’.

Opanyin Baah said as part of his reliefs in the said suit, he sought to pray the court to place an injunction restraining the respondents by themselves, their servants, agents, cohorts whatsoever described from launching the purported “Kwahu State Book”.

The applicant said the respondents were served with the writ of summons; “hence they were in full knowledge of our opposition to the launch of the said book.”

The applicant held that surprisingly and in “a complete act of insubordination to the powers of the court”, the respondents caused their lawyers to write a notice to the general public to disregard any suit that had been brought against the launch of the book, claiming that there was no injunction order placed on same.

“That true to their words and whilst the applicants’ suit was yet to be determined, the Respondents went ahead and launched the said book with pomp and pageantry….” The applicant said the respondents’ conduct if not punished had the likelihood of undermining the administration of justice and “such impudence towards the judiciary must not be entertain