John Boadu goes to court

The National Organiser of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), John Boadu, has filed a writ against DST Global Consult, publisher of the Republic newspaper, following a publication that he had used party money to purchase a brand new Hyundai SUV vehicle worth $43,000.

John Boadu is seeking a GHc 500,000 general and exemplary damages over the report and a retraction and apology by the newspaper.

The writ of summons – a copy of which is available to DAILY GUIDE – named the defendants as Michael Ghanney, the paper’s news editor, David Tamakloe, managing editor and DST Global Consult.

The Republic on July 21, 2015 carried a front page publication with the headline, “John Boadu Grabs New $40,000 Car – Accused of Pocketing GHc 650,000 as Talensi Creditors Chase NPP.”

The paper alleged that the NPP youth organiser used GHc 650,000 given to him by the party for the recent by-election held in the Talensi constituency of the Upper East Region to purchase the Hyundai SUV.

According to Mr John Boadu (plaintiff), whose lawyers are Lexkudoz Legal Consultants, the defendants’ headline was untrue and defamatory.

He is seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants jointly and or severally either by themselves or by their agents from further publishing or causing to be printed, the said defamatory words or like words.

The plaintiff is finally seeking a retraction and apology in the defendants’ newspaper with the same prominence as the one that appeared in the paper together with four publications on the front and back pages of the Daily Graphic newspaper for four consecutive weeks.

Statement Of Claim

In the statement of claim, Mr John Boadu averred that the Republic newspaper’s publication that “Details of the new car are still trickling in. The glittering white SUV which has barely shed its enticingly fresh showroom scent is said to have cost a whopping $43,000, causing a stir among some members of the party convinced that the head-turning car was an evidence of some of the untraceable election funds.

“Apparently, the monies allocated by the party for the organisation of the Talensi by-election through him did not trickle down to the constituency, leading to anger among party ‘foot-soldiers and creditors,’” amounts to defamation.

The plaintiff further avers and will contend that the statements are false and constitute a grave libel/defamation of the plaintiff as the words in their natural and ordinary meaning mean or are understood to mean:

a) Plaintiff is a thief, greedy, opportunistic and dishonest

b) That plaintiff is not loyal to his party and is only using his position in the NPP for financial gains.

John Boadu said as a result of the publication and dissemination of the false and defamatory newspaper story, he had “suffered considerable distress, anguish, and hurt/injury and had been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt.”

The plaintiff again contends that he finds such an attempt to tarnish his hard earned reputation both in politics, public life and business very worrying, adding that the allegations are preposterous; hence, the court action.