NADMO boss drags Daily Guide to court

The Coordinator of the National Disaster Management Organization (NADMO), Sir Kofi Portuphy has filed a suit against Western Publications Limited, publishers of the "Daily Guide" newspaper for libelous publications aimed at lowering his reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of the society.

Mr. Kofi Portuphy, via his lawyer, Abraham Amaliba is demanding five million Ghana cedis for damages for libel and an injunction restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents or any person or persons acting through or under them, from publishing or causing to be published such or similar words defamatory to the plaintiff.

The suit is in respect of a screaming headline story on the front page of the Daily Guide newspaper "PORTUPHY MUST GO, BLOWS GHC 300m", with his picture prominently displayed in its January 26, 2015 edition has thrown his reputation in doubt.

According to a copy of the writ of summons served the 'Daily Guide' by lawyers of the chairman of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) and chanced upon by myradiogoldlive.com, the paper was insistent in imputing criminality on Sir. Kofi Portuphy to assure the reading public as to the truth and the originality of the libelous words following the Monday, January 26, 2015 edition of the 'Daily Guide' that accused Sir. Dr. Kofi Portuphy of allegedly misappropriating a whopping amount of THREE HUNDRED MILLION GHANA CEDIS meant for the NADMO.

The suit also accused the publishers of being reckless and irresponsible in publishing the defamatory story about the NDC chairman when they knew the story was false, but yet went ahead with the publication without due recourse to the headquarters to substantiate their claims.

In the said publication, the 'Daily Guide' claimed that the NADMO boss spent in excess of Ghc300m on relief items in the last quarter of 2012, describing the expenditure as "ghostly."

Lawyers for Mr. Portuphy described the publication by the 'Daily Guide' as giving impression that the story was published after due diligence was conducted to ascertain the credibility or otherwise of the story contained in the publication prior to its publication; for which reason, the contents of the publication would be believed by its readers when in actual fact, no real due diligence was conducted by the paper.