Former Council of State Member under John Dramani Mahama’s Administration, Opanyin Abraham Kwaku Adusei and three other persons; Jacob Asirifi Senior, Enoch Ofori, and Daniel Mensah have been cited for contempt.
A motion on Notice for Order of Committal for Contempt of Court against Abraham Kwaku Adusei of the Saviour Church of Ghana and four other members of the church, was filed by Barima Yaw Kodie Oppong, Esquire, on behalf of the applicant, Saviour Church of Ghana.
The contempt application is praying the court to effect any order it deems proper to compel the respondents to restore the signage, symbols, and any other evidence of the applicant’s (Saviour Church of Ghana’s) property removed by the respondents.
Saviour Church of Ghana won a Supreme Court review case that has spanned a period of 24 years. The church was subsequently granted the right to possession of its properties.
The case went the full length for 24 years from the High Court to the Supreme Court Review that ruled the case in the favour of Elia Dadeako, the Spiritual Leader of Saviour Church of Ghana as the head of the church.
The motion for contempt filed before the Apex Court avers that on June 28, 2022, court officials and the police commenced the execution of the Writ of Possession.
The motion, however, alleges that agents of Abraham Adusei and four others prevented the officers from carrying out the orders of the court, assaulting the court officials and some of the representatives of the church.
It said the material evidence submitted by the applicant includes an audio recording where the principal defendant, Abraham Adusei, a former Council of State Member under the John Mahama Administration, ordered his congregants to insert “THE” in all properties of Saviour Church of Ghana to read “The Saviour Church Of Ghana” to enable them to profess possession of the church’s properties.
The application avers that the first respondent was heard insisting that church members go around the country and find branches of the church and remove all symbols, signages and any other evidence of ownership of property in name of the church.
As a result of this, the motion avers that the respondents have begun removing the signage on the church’s properties to make it impossible for discovery, thereby disobeying the orders of the court.
It also avers that some persons loyal to the respondents have also followed their instruction and have started changing the name of the church by adding ‘The’ to the name of the church “thereby overreaching this honourable court in an unimaginable contemptuous disposition.”
The motion argues that the acts of the respondents are calculated to conceal the assets and properties of the church in their possession, contrary to the rulings and judgements of the Superior Courts and “deliberately fashioned to overreach the court in a contemptuous manner.”
“Plaintiff says that the respondents’ conduct is willful and a flagrant disregard and disrespect for the authority of the court, and same is calculated not only to overreach the hearing and determination of their own application pending before the court, but more significantly to undermine the authority of the honourable court and the judicial process and, therefore, the respondent is in clear contempt of court,” the motion argues.
It adds that unless the respondents are punished for contempt of court, they will not desist from the contemptuous act and shall be emboldened to perpetuate similar acts, especially against the church.
It is asking the court to commit the respondents for contempt and apply the punishment it deems fit.