Menu

SC orders DNA test of boy, 10

Court Law MallatLibrary Photo: Court

Wed, 8 Jul 2015 Source: Daily Guide

The Supreme Court has ordered the mother of a 10-year-old boy to send the child for a DNA test.

The move was to assist the apex court to ascertain the paternity of the boy whose fatherhood had been embroiled in litigation.

Kwami Boni, counsel for the applicant, Eric Asante, had wanted the court to commit Rubamatu Mohammed, mother of the child, and two others for contempt for failing to make the child available for the DNA test as ordered by the court.

Rubamatu is purported to have gone into hiding to evade service by the bailiffs of the court.

Eric was on September 5, 2005 convicted for 15 years in hard labour by the Tamale High Court for allegedly defiling Rubamatu, which led to the birth of the boy.

Mr Boni, in an application for committal for contempt, had among other things stated that the conduct of the respondents was deliberate, knowing full well that his client (Eric) never had sex with Rubamatu Mohammed.

However, appearing before the five-member panel presided over by Justice William Atuguba, Ms Mohammed, who said she worked at Mamprugu, stated that she did not know of the order for the DNA test.

Juliet Tuinjina, an aunt of Mohammed and the second respondent in the case, said the baby was not in her custody.

The third respondent, Gladys Abokokpa, elder sister of the complainant, also in an attempt to purge herself of the contempt charge, said she was in school when the order was served, adding that the child was with her (Gladys’) mother who had died.

Justice Atuguba, unsatisfied with the excuses from the three, said the rule of law is very important, indicating that people want to be stronger than the law.

He cautioned the respondents not to joke with the court and accordingly ordered Rubamatu to make the child available for the DNA test at the police hospital yesterday.

As a result, Mr Boni withdrew the contempt application before the court.

Earlier, Tarduis Sori, counsel for the respondents, had apologised on behalf of his clients for the circumstance under which the case had been brought that far.

Source: Daily Guide