Member of Parliament for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa
According to Kofi Bekai, a private legal practitioner, the onus is on Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa to prove his allegations against Rev. Kusi Boateng.
He explained that a board member could seek approval from the board to assist a company or entity in reaching a resolution.
He stated that under the Company Act, one could discuss with the board about doing something on its behalf if it had been fully disclosed and discussed by the board.
In response to the allegations of corruption and conflict of interest levelled against the man of God, he stated that the man of God did not do what has been accused of in the dark, but rather discussed it with the board and it was approved.
When that happens, the lawyer says, “the man of God did not do this in the far. He would say it at the board meeting, every member would agree, they would pass a resolution, it would be discussed, and no conflict of interest would be found”.
Lawyer Bekai stated that the MP should have investigated the matter before going public with it and publishing it on Facebook because it amounts to defamation.
He noted that when you defame someone, that person has the right to drag you into court as well.
”Per the law, there is what we refer to as a duty of care. Duty of care requires that I don’t do anything to defame or disgrace you. If you breach that duty of care, you will pay damages after you have been dragged to court.”
He went on to say that the issue of the two different names is not necessarily a problem as long as the necessary documentation is in place to use the two names interchangeably.
He said that the MP making the allegations might have two names, one known to his family and the other in public.
Lawyer Bekai stressed ”in this scenario, it does not mean it is not the same person. And yet, you go on Facebook to publish these assertions. The person could drag you before the court because you have breached the duty of care to pay attention to the fact that your so-called investigation is not factual”.
