Kelni GVG acting CEO cited for perjury

Lawyers of the applicant in the case titled ‘Francis Kwarteng Arthur vs. Vodafone Ghana and four others have accused the acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Kelni GVG Rouba Habboushi of lying under oath and have filed a Perjury charge against her.

The applicant claims the acting CEO of Kelni GVG, (the 3rd Respondent) has deposed to false information to the court in the case in which Mr Arthur, a private legal practitioner, filed on April 6, 2020 at the High Court to challenge the President’s order contained in Executive Instrument (EI) Number 63 and the manner in which the order was being implemented.

In a motion for perjury filed at the High Court on Friday and sighted by Starrfm.com.gh, lawyers of the applicant indicated that “the respondent made the deposition mentioned in paragraph 7 of this affidavit knowing same to be false in respect of a material particular, or having no reason to believe in the truth thereof.”

According to the affidavit in support of the motion for perjury, the applicant explained “on or about March 27, 2020, the 3rd Respondent, a private entity, acting on behalf or purporting to act on behalf of the President or the 4th Respondent (National Communications Authority), did write to all communication networks operators or service providers including 1st Respondent (Vodafone Ghana Limited) and the 2nd Respondent (SCANCOM- MTN Ghana) directing or requesting them, ostensibly pursuant to the said EI63 to put my personal information and the personal information includes but not limited to a dump of subscribers database, the subscriber cell reference data, the unhashed subscriber mobile money number transfer data, and a dump mobile money merchant codes and addresses.

“That on May 20, the respondent, Rouba Habboushi, acting in her capacity as the Acting Chief Executive of the 3rd Respondent to the amended originating motion, did depose to the 3rd Respondent affidavit in opposition to my affidavit in support on my amended application for an order of interlocutory injunction”.

According to the affidavit, the acting CEO of Kelni GVG denied categorically in paragraph six of her affidavit in opposition that Kelni GVG ever wrote or requested from Vodafone and MTN particulars of subscriber, a development she knew was untrue.

“That the averment contained in paragraph 10 of the Amended affidavit in support of the originating notion which the applicant rallies on in this instant application is denied as the 3rd respondent has made no such demand on the 1st and 2nd respondent or any other communication network operator or service provider as alleged by the applicant,” Madam Habboushi is said to have deposed on oath.



But contrary to her deposition, Habboushi, the 3rd Respondent did, “in fact, send a communication to at least the 2nd Respondent requesting my personal information and the personal information of other communication network subscribers to be made available to its.

“…The respondent made the deposition mentioned in paragraph 7 of this affidavit knowing same to be false in respect of a material particular, or having no reason to believe in the truth thereof.

Committal for prison

The applicant state that, “I’m advised by counsel and I verily believe same to be truth that this honourable court has the power to under section 152 (1)(b) Act 30 as amended by section 14 of Act 633 under section 210(1) of act 29, and under its inherent jurisdiction, order the respondent Rouba Habboushi to show cause why she should not be committed to prison for perjury upon deliberate false deposition which she made on oath to this honourable court, which deposition is mentioned in paragraph 7 of this affidavit.

“I’m advised by counsel and verily believe same to be true that this is a proper case where this honourable court ought to exercise its jurisdiction to grant (a) an order directed at the respondent Rouba Habboushi to show cause why should not be committed to prison for jury and b any other order s that the honourbale court may deem fit”.

The court has fixed June 4, a returned date for the motion to be moved.