North Tongu Member of Parliament, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, publicly criticized the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) for its handling of a case involving Reverend Victor Kusi Boateng, who is implicated in a double identity controversy. Ablakwa took to social media on November 26, 2023, to express his dissatisfaction with CHRAJ’s investigation, alleging that they failed to adequately address critical evidence he presented regarding Kusi Boateng’s identity. He accused the Commission of prematurely exonerating Kusi Boateng despite clear indications of identity fraud, particularly in light of allegations that Kusi Boateng held two passports under different names.
The essence of Ablakwa’s complaint centers on his petition to CHRAJ, which he filed in January 2023. This petition highlighted allegations that Kusi Boateng, who is also the Secretary of the National Cathedral Board of Trustees, was involved in several conflicts of interest and financial irregularities. One key element of the allegations was the transfer of GH¢2.6 million to Kusi Boateng’s company, JNS Talent Centre Limited, which raised questions about the legitimacy of such transactions within the context of his public role. Nevertheless, CHRAJ’s findings concluded that Kusi Boateng only had one passport under the name Kwabena Adu Gyamfi, and the Commission dismissed the allegations of multiple identities as unfounded.
In a detailed critique of CHRAJ’s investigation, Ablakwa highlighted substantial evidence he believed the Commission overlooked. He pointed to inconsistencies in the information recorded in various official databases, including the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA), the National Identification Authority, and the Electoral Commission, which revealed differing dates of birth and names associated with Kusi Boateng’s identities. These discrepancies, according to Ablakwa, undermine CHRAJ’s credibility and reflect poorly on their commitment to impartial justice. He chastised the Commission for what he termed a “ridiculous whitewash” of the case and questioned the integrity of the findings that exonerated Kusi Boateng.
Ablakwa emphasized the importance of the case not only for its implications regarding Kusi Boateng’s personal conduct but also for the broader significance it holds for public trust in government institutions. He expressed concern that CHRAJ’s dismissal of the allegations might embolden future misconduct and undermine the rule of law. By overlooking crucial evidence and failing to acknowledge the complexities of Kusi Boateng’s dual identities, Ablakwa fears that CHRAJ has damaged its own reputation and that of its mandate. His public outcry encapsulates a growing frustration among some Ghanaian citizens regarding the effectiveness of oversight bodies in holding individuals accountable for alleged misconduct.
In his social media post, Ablakwa posed provocative questions that sought to challenge the rationale behind CHRAJ’s conclusions. He queried how the Commission could assert that Kusi Boateng possessed only one passport while still possessing a different name with a differing date of birth. This line of questioning aims to shine a light on the perceived inconsistencies within CHRAJ’s findings, which he argues fail to clear Kusi Boateng of the serious allegations against him. By spotlighting these contradictions, Ablakwa seeks to draw public attention to the necessity for a thorough, transparent investigation.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Reverend Victor Kusi Boateng’s dual identity raises broader questions about accountability, transparency, and the effectiveness of governmental oversight in Ghana. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa’s denunciation of CHRAJ’s findings serves as a rallying cry for greater scrutiny of public officials and the institutions designed to oversee them. His insistence on the importance of credible investigations underscores a critical citizen-led demand for integrity in governance, emphasizing that the battle against identity fraud and corruption must involve all arms of the state functioning effectively and justly. As the discourse unfolds, it remains to be seen how this situation will impact public faith in both CHRAJ and the broader initiatives surrounding governance and integrity in Ghana.
