<<Print>>A Kumasi High Court has finde the Ashanti Regional New Patriotic Party(NPP) Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako alias Chairman Wontumi GHC 1,000 for amending his defense application in a case brought against him by the President’s brother, Ibrahim Mahama.
The businessman sued the NPP Chairman over what he described as defamatory comments made against him.Mr. Antwi- Boasiako is said to have accused Mr. Mahama of being a “thief and dishonest man” who together with President Mahama, have been increasing fuel prices and hoarding the proceeds in some banks in South Africa.
Mr. Ibrahim Mahama, in his statement of claim to the Fast Track High Court in Accra, in May 2014 said, Chairman Wontumi, made the defamatory comments on March 30, 2014 at a People’s Forum at Obuasi in the Ashanti Region.
According to the plaintiff, the said defamatory statements were made to cause damage to his reputation.
The plaintiff, who is being represented by Mr Charles William Zwennes, is also seeking a declaration that the defamatory statements made by Mr Antwi-Bosiako were false and malicious.
Chairman Wontumi however, reportedly amended his defense application and denied calling both President Mahama and his brother thieves.
The court subsequently granted a plea by lawyer for Ibrahim Mahama, Charles Zwenes for the award of a cost against the defendant for amending his defense application.
Speaking to Citi News however, Counsel for the Chairman Wontumi, Egbert Faibble stated that the ruling does not translate into victory for the plaintiff.
He further noted that the decision to slap a fine on his client for amending his application was unfair since every individual is entitled to amend his defense application “anytime”.
“We were supposed to a file defense within two weeks of entering appearance, we filed the defense, and after filing defense, additional information has come to our knowledge which is crucial to the defense of the few and so we apply to the court as the rule provides and the court granted us legal backing so how can this be indecision,”the legal practitioner further explained.
“There is no way that this can amount to indecision.Of all that has been put before the court and the court has granted,” Egbert Faibille added.