AG Fights Child Adoption Judgement

Otiko Afisa Djaba

An Accra High Court (Criminal Division) has set February 7, 2018, to hear an application of stay of execution filed by Deputy Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, relating to the adoption of a child by two United States-based couple.

This comes after the court had dismissed a preliminary objection to the application of stay of execution by Daniel Opare Asiedu, counsel for the couple.

Ethan Michael Ram and Hilary Holt Ram in February 2017 secured a ruling by a Koforidua circuit court to adopt the three-year-old child (name withheld).

They were however, denied the opportunity by the Minister for Gender, Children and Social Protection, Otiko Afisa Djaba, to travel with the child to the USA because of a directive by the ministry, which placed a ban on the adoption in the country.

Not satisfied with the decision, the two, through their lawyer, Daniel Opare Asiedu, proceeded to an Accra high court, presided over by Justice Justin Kofi Dorgu, which ordered the Gender Minister and the Director of Social Welfare to release the child to the new parents.

But the state refused to comply with the court's ruling, stating that it intends to pray the court to set aside its ruling on the matter.

This resulted in the lawyer for the US-based citizens suing Otiko Afisa Djaba and the Director of Social Welfare for contempt of court, which is yet to be determined in an Accra high court.

The state has subsequently filed an application for stay of execution and the deputy attorney general was expected to move the motion at the last sitting a couple of days ago.

But when the case was called, Mr. Opare Asiedu raised a preliminary objection saying the minister and the director were in contempt of the court for refusing to obey its order to release the child; and could therefore not make any prayers before it.

He averred that when a person is deemed to be in contempt of court, he must purge himself of the contempt before he can make any applications before it.

“They cannot file an application of stay of execution unless they purge themselves of the contempt of court,” Mr. Asiedu argued.

But Mr. Yeboah Dame argued that no court had cited them for contempt and that it was just an application that had been made by the lawyer, saying, that had not been determined by any court and could not be deemed as such.

He said in any case, the application for contempt of court and for a stay of execution are two distinct cases.

In his ruling, the judge held that if the Gender Minister and the Director of Social Welfare had purged themselves of the contempt charge and the child was released, there is no guarantee that the child would be in the country while the state makes a case for its application for a stay of execution.

He subsequently rejected the preliminary objection and adjourned the matter to February 7, 2018 for the state to move its motion of stay of execution.

Gibril Abdul Razak