The Secretary to the Board of Trustees of the National Cathedral, Kwabena Adu Gyamfi (also known as Victor Kusi Boateng), has shed light on the reasons behind the dramatic rejection of court papers by Member of Parliament for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa. Adu Gyamfi has filed a suit seeking Ablakwa’s conviction for contempt of court and abuse of court processes.
According to court documents, when the bailiff approached Ablakwa to serve him with the court papers, the MP initially refused to accept the service, claiming that he was on his way to Parliamentary proceedings and therefore immune from being served with court papers. However, the bailiff reminded Ablakwa that Parliament was on recess, to which the MP then claimed he was on his way to a meeting of a Parliament committee, which turned out to be a false statement made to evade service of court papers.
Adu Gyamfi argues that the basis for his request for Ablakwa’s jail sentence for contempt is partly due to the fact that Ablakwa’s lawyer explained that the immunities available to MPs from being served personally with court papers can only be invoked when the MP is either on their way to or from Parliamentary proceedings or activities, an immunity that Ablakwa could not have invoked on February 3rd, 2023 as Parliament was on recess at that time.
A viral video captured the interaction between Ablakwa and the court bailiff, in which the MP was seen preventing the bailiff from putting court papers into his car. After the papers had fallen to the ground and the bailiff had left, Ablakwa returned to kick the papers away twice from his car.
The court papers have been confirmed to be a 10-day restraining order preventing Ablakwa from making any public publications on Adu Gyamfi’s personal records, as well as a defamation suit for previous publications and threats to continue doing so.
In conclusion, Ablakwa’s open rejection of court papers, as well as his false statements to evade service, have led to Adu Gyamfi’s request for the MP’s conviction for contempt of court. The case highlights the importance of respecting court processes and the immunities available to MPs in relation to serving court papers
Leave feedback about this