Blay Sues Ablakwa For GH¢20m

The Chief Executive Officer of DAILY GUIDE newspaper, Kwame Blay, has sued the Member of Parliament (MP) for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, over unsubstantiated defamatory statements in both traditional and social media.

The suit, filed at the registry of a high court in Accra, avers that the statements made on June 7 and 18, 2024 by the MP have caused damage to his reputation, resulting in him losing an investment from his business partners who were ready to invest over $10 million in the plaintiff’s affordable housing projects.

The plaintiff is a businessman who owns multi-million-dollar companies within Ghana and the United States, including Terraform Limited, New Image Technology Transfer Limited, Sustainable Housing Solutions Limited, Cultural Management Group Limited, BBNZ Live Limited, among others.

Mr. Blay avers that the damages caused to his business by the actions of Mr. Ablakwa amount to the sum of approximately GH¢20 million in lost profit by virtue of the revenue that he would have made from all those business dealings and is, therefore, seeking same as special damages.

 

Defamatory Statements

The North Tongu MP on June 7, 2024 took to social media and published, “Even though it is difficult not to develop sympathy for Loic Devos Junior on how he was crudely hounded out of the deal by the Blay brothers, the organisation one has to pity the most is Labadi Beach Hotel.”

He continued that, “The court documents expose an epic dogfight between Loic and Kwaw over fantastic sums of money being proceeds from the business activities on Labadi Hotel’s encroached beachfront, and yet Labadi Beach Hotel has absolutely no share in the booty, particularly after a joint venture agreement was contemptuously flouted by the all powerful Blay brothers (Kwaw Worsemao Blay and Kwame Edenkema Blay).”

Mr. Ablakwa did not end there but also claimed in an interview on Accra based Citi FM that “…the Blay brothers, according to over 800 pages of court documents, decided that they will elbow out their business partner, they will also refuse to pay Labadi Beach Hotel and someway somehow, the board of Labadi Beach Hotel, discovered that there is construction going on their beachfront… the Blay brothers have created a new pathway to the beach and they are saying that they have met some people in the La Traditional Council.”

The MP, who later petitioned the President, once again took to his Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) and posted, “The Blay family should be instructed by President Akufo-Addo to stop the illegal encroachment, stop issuing threats, and get off Labadi Beach Hotel’s beachfront. It is a national embarrassment that the Labadi Beach Hotel has become the only beach hotel in the world without ownership and control of its beachfront.”

“The Blay brothers should be made to respect the initial joint venture agreement with Labadi Beach Hotel and compensate Labadi Beach Hotel for the financial losses their reckless conduct has occasioned.”

 

Statement of Claim

Kwame Blay, in his statement of claim, avers that he is the son of Freddie Worsemao Blay, and has only one brother, Kwaw Worsemao Blay, a fact that is widely known, so any reference to ‘Blay Brothers’, ‘Freddie Blay’s sons’ or the ‘Blay family’ therefore includes the plaintiff.

He avers that Mr. Ablakwa, under the guise of purported advocacy against the sale of the Government of Ghana’s interest in certain hotels, has gone on a rampage publishing lies and falsehoods against the plaintiff’s person.

The plaintiff avers that the MP, who is clearly enjoying the attention that his fabrications have brought him, “has on subsequent occasions published more lies about the Plaintiff, hoping to do further damage to the Plaintiff’s reputation, and has indeed succeeded in doing such damage.”

Mr. Blay, in his suit, argues that the MP has made several unfounded allegations and published palpable falsehoods against his person.

According to the plaintiff, the words complained about in their natural and ordinary meaning as well as in their secondary meaning, mean that the plaintiff is involved in a transaction with a man named Loic Devos Jnr, in respect of an interest in the Labadi Beach Hotel beachfront.

He avers that the words also mean the “Plaintiff is an unscrupulous, dishonest and untrustworthy businessman, who has together with his brother, Kwaw Blay, cheated Loic Devos Jnr out of his interest in the transaction.”

The plaintiff argues that the words complained about mean he has breached the terms of a supposed agreement with Loic Devos Jnr, and has also been involved in a grand scheme engineered to ensure that Labadi Beach Hotel does not get monies it is entitled to.

Again, he argues that the words mean the plaintiff colluded with the former MD of Labadi Beach Hotel to make the hotel lose its beachfront, an attempt which has been successful, and is currently resulting in huge losses to the hotel, and by extension the Ghanaian public: “The Plaintiff has made illegal and illicit profits to the detriment of the Labadi Beach Hotel, and is generally not a trustworthy person that anyone should be involved in any sort of business dealings with, or at the very least, should hesitate to deal with, and Plaintiff, together with his family, have unlawfully taken over the Labadi Beach Hotel beachfront.”

Mr. Blay indicates in his statement of claim that “the words complained of are false, misleading, products of the Defendant’s imagination, and were mischievously designed to disparage the Plaintiff and stain his reputation.”

He said he has never been involved in any transaction with Loic Devos Jnr, concerning, involving, surrounding, or impacting the Labadi Beach Hotel, adding that “To be clear, he has never been a shareholder of Polo Beach Club, or any company affiliated with Polo Beach Club. He has also never been involved in and is in no way tied to his brother’s businesses.”

It is his case that one would objectively expect a person in the shoes of Mr. Ablakwa, who is an MP and former Deputy Minister for Education, titles he proudly inscribes on his social media accounts, to know that there is a clear distinction between natural persons, and that the act of one person cannot be attributed to another.

“The Plaintiff avers that his brother, Kwaw Blay, is a full-grown adult and successful businessman in his own right, and even if the Defendant had certain issues with his brother’s business dealings, the logical conclusion cannot be that the ‘Blay brothers’ or ‘Blay family’ are together responsible,” the statement read.

Mr. Blay also avers that a careful review of all the documents Mr. Ablakwa relies on clearly shows that he has no stake in the subject matter and, therefore, does not understand the reason the Defendant has categorically tied him to issues between Kwaw Blay and his business partners, which is currently pending before a court.

“The Plaintiff avers that taken together, it becomes clear that the Defendant only appears to be interested in gaining political capital from all this, and is uninterested in the truth, even if it comes at the cost of ruining the Plaintiff’s hard-won reputation in business, cultivated for over 25 years,” he added in the statement.

 

Particulars of Malice

The plaintiff further argues that Mr. Ablakwa knew very well that at the time he was making these publications based on the information available to him, some of which he has made public that the plaintiff, Kwame Blay, was in no way connected to any joint venture agreement relating to the Labadi Beach Hotel beachfront.

“The Defendant knew very well that by virtue of his position as a Member of Parliament and the present political climate leading up to the general elections, his publications would lend immense credibility to his believability, attach credibility to his publication and spur on several political actors who would simply latch onto them without due regard for the truth, just for political purposes,” Mr. Blay stated.

He further states that the words on their own are defamatory in nature and lowers his image in the sight of right-thinking members of society.

 

Negative Impact

The plaintiff avers that his business dealings have already been severely impacted by the defendant’s false and malicious publications.

He states that as of April 2024, he had an investor who was interested in investing in his affordable housing projects called ‘The Holden’ and ‘Sanbra City Development’.

“However, by virtue of these publications, the investor pulled out his investment and indicated that he will not be dealing with the Plaintiff, causing the Plaintiff to lose millions of dollars,” the statement said.

Kwame Blay also states that by virtue of Mr. Ablakwa’s publications, persons who had committed to buying properties from his affordable housing projects are demanding a refund of their monies, causing the plaintiff severe hardship.

“The Plaintiff avers that the Defendant’s publications have also caused his company, Afrofuture Limited to lose collaborations and sponsorship for 2024 Afrofuture event, which will likely affect ticket sales as well,” he stated.

Other negative impacts of the defamatory statements include “The Plaintiff has lost an investment from his business partners who were ready to invest over 10 million dollars in the Plaintiffs affordable housing projects.”

Again, “The Plaintiff has been shunned and ridiculed by the Ghanaian public and same has affected the patronage of all his businesses.”

 

Reliefs

Mr. Blay is therefore, seeking a declaration that the words contained in Mr. Ablakwa’s publications in respect of the plaintiff indorsed on the writ of summons are defamatory.

General damages for defamation, special damages of GH¢20 million, aggravated and exemplary damages arising from the defamatory words as well as costs, inclusive of counsel’s fees.

He is also seeking a perpetual injunction restraining Mr. Ablakwa either by himself, his agents, associates, privies and assigns or any other person or entity from further publishing or causing to be published, printing or causing to be printed, distributing or otherwise circulating the said defamatory words and or any other similar words.

Again, an order directed at the defendant to retract the defamatory words and render an unqualified apology to the plaintiff, through the same media through which the defamatory words were published.