Ex-National Signals Bureau boss and wife sue Attorney General for defamation
By DL News
Published
Updated
1 min read
In the lawsuit, the couple contends that Dr Ayine made false and damaging statements that portrayed them as corrupt individuals involved in embezzlement and money laundering. According to the plaintiffs, these claims have deeply tarnished t...
Kwabena Adu Boahene, the former Director-General of the National Signals Bureau, and his wife have initiated legal action against the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Dr Dominic Ayine, alleging defamation stemming from comments made during a press briefing on March 24, 2025.
In the lawsuit, the couple contends that Dr Ayine made false and damaging statements that portrayed them as corrupt individuals involved in embezzlement and money laundering. According to the plaintiffs, these claims have deeply tarnished their reputation and subjected their family—especially their children—to public mockery and emotional distress, including ridicule at school.
The writ further asserts that the defamatory remarks were not only spoken publicly but also shared in writing online and widely disseminated via social media and news outlets, intensifying the damage to their public image.
Boahene and his wife argue that Dr Ayine exceeded his constitutional authority by making prejudicial comments that pre-judged their guilt without affording them the opportunity for a fair hearing. They claim the statements were made “recklessly and without candour” and that the Attorney General collaborated with the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) to have them arrested and detained without proper legal procedure.
Their statement of claim outlines several key issues, including:
Being labelled as criminals without a court verdict.
False allegations relating to their travel history and financial records.
Exposure of sensitive national security information.
Attempts to sway public opinion using media coverage and suggest punitive sentencing prematurely.
The couple maintains that these actions were motivated by malice and represent a gross misuse of public office intended to cause lasting reputational harm.
They are therefore seeking:
Exemplary and punitive damages for the alleged defamatory content published during the March 24 press conference.
A perpetual injunction to prevent any further dissemination of similar defamatory statements.
Costs, including legal fees, associated with the case.
