[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he suspended General Secretary of the governing New Patriotic Party, Mr. Kwabena Agyapong is claiming a GHC400, 000 damage in a defamatory suit against the party’s Ashanti Regional Chairman, Bernard Antwi Boasiako.
This became necessary after his demand for an apology from the accused popularly known as Chairman Wontumi for defaming him was apparently rejected. According to Mr. Agyapong, Chairman Wontumi slandered him when the latter claimed he “stooped so low” and collected a plush car from Ibrahim Mahama to work against the NPP’s presidential interest.
He said the statement was “absolute false” which was “diabolically made” to tarnish his image in the right thinking members of the society, but the chairman has refused to “show remorse”.
As the last resort, Mr. Agyapong filed a suit at the High Court in Kumasi against Chairman Wontumi and Multimedia Group Limited’s Nhyira FM as the first defendant and second defendants respectively. The statement, the writ said, also “portrays the plaintiff as a greedy and selfish man who for his own selfish gain will sell out the political success of an entire NPP for a vehicle.”
According to the plaintiff, the statement has cast doubt on his loyalty to the party at a time a section of party supporters are campaigning to get him reinstated. Kwabena Agyapong said the statement by the first defendant has “grossly affected his reputation” and he is therefore seeking several reliefs including solicitors fees.
“An order of the court compelling the first defendant to write a letter personally addressed to the plaintiff admitting his comments were untrue and unfortunate and given his tacit commitment never again to spew such falsehood and scandalous defamatory remarks on the person of the plaintiff.
Wontumi Accuses Kwabena Agyepong of being behind the ongoing vigilantism mayhem
“An order of the court compelling the first defendant to pay an amount of GHC400, 000 as punitive and exemplary damages to the plaintiff as damages for the defamatory comments he (the first defendant) said about the plaintiff,”. He also prayed to the court to compel the second defendant to daily play the retraction of the defamatory comments by the first defendant for a continuous period of one year the date of judgment and to never permit the making of such slanderous and unsubstantiated remarks by persons of the sort of the first defendant.
