Joana Quaye seeks limits on children’s contact with Hajia4Reall in RNAQ divorce case

The Family Court in Accra is set to review video evidence in the divorce dispute between Joana Quaye and businessman Richard Nii Armah Quaye, after fresh concerns were raised about the couple’s children and their alleged interaction with Mona Faiz Montrage, popularly known as Hajia4Reall.

The issue came up on Tuesday, June 2, during the hearing of an application for maintenance orders pending appeal.

Mrs Quaye is asking the court to restrict the children’s contact with Hajia4Reall and to limit the periods during which Mr Quaye has access to them.

Her application relies partly on video evidence and material referring to Hajia4Reall’s previous incarceration.

According to Mrs Quaye, continued association between the children and Hajia4Reall may not serve their best interests.

She also claims that the children’s social media conduct has been negatively affected by their environment while in Mr Quaye’s care.

Court filings referred to a video involving one of the children, which Mrs Quaye says raises welfare and supervision concerns.

The documents further state that when the issue was brought to Mr Quaye’s attention, he acknowledged concerns about the child’s conduct.

Mrs Quaye also alleges that Mr Quaye is often unavailable during periods when the children visit him.

As a result, she claims, the children spend considerable time with Hajia4Reall and her child, who she says live with Mr Quaye.

Mr Quaye, through his lawyer Nana Boakye Mensah-Bonsu, opposed the application.

His counsel argued that the orders being sought would affect Hajia4Reall directly, even though she is not a party to the case and has not been heard.

He said granting the orders without hearing from her could raise natural justice concerns.

The Respondent also challenged the court’s jurisdiction to make the orders after judgment had already been delivered.

But Mrs Quaye’s lawyer, Godfred Yeboah Dame, argued that the court still has power under Order 65 Rule 23(3) and (4) of C.I. 47 and the Matrimonial Causes Act to make post-judgment orders.

He added that Mrs Quaye would not oppose serving the motion on Hajia4Reall or allowing her to participate if the court considered that necessary.

On the video evidence, lawyers for Mr Quaye said they would respond after the court had viewed the material.

The court has adjourned the matter to June 26, 2026.

On that date, it is expected to view the video evidence, hear further submissions and consider Mrs Quaye’s pending motion for injunction.