Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng/Kwabena Adu Gyamfi: CHRAJ Verdict Sparks Identity Debate – Manasseh Azure

The controversy surrounding Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng, also known as Mr. Kwabena Adu Gyamfi, continues to generate debate even after the CHRAJ ruling, which declared that his passport was issued under the name Kwabena Adu Gyamfi. While some view this decision as clearing him of allegations, many questions remain unresolved.

1. Single Identity Expectation: It is generally expected that individuals use one consistent identity across all official documents unless a legal name change occurs. If a name is changed, the new name should be uniformly adopted.
2. Public Recognition: Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng was widely known by this name, with his wife also bearing the title Mrs. Anita Kusi Boateng, who serves as the Board Chairperson of the Youth Employment Agency (YEA).

Rev. Victor Kusi Boateng

1. Inconsistent Documentation: Despite CHRAJ’s findings, significant discrepancies persist:
   • His passport reportedly bears the name Kwabena Adu Gyamfi.
   • His driver’s license identifies him as Victor Kusi Boateng.
   • Both names appear in Ghana’s Electoral Commission records for the 2016 and 2020 elections, seemingly with the same photograph.
2. Tax Registrations: Documents from the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) reportedly show that both identities were used for different tax registrations, with separate source documents for each.
3. Conflicting Personal Details: GRA records suggest the two names are associated with different dates of birth and even different mothers, adding to the complexity of the case.
4. Legal Questions: The unresolved question is whether it is lawful for one individual to use multiple identities in official dealings, particularly when such actions involve state agencies.

Court Rulings and Appeals: Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, who raised these allegations, recently won a court case related to this matter, but Rev. Kusi Boateng has appealed the decision. The appeal remains pending, leaving key issues unanswered.

While the CHRAJ ruling addressed the name on the passport, it has not conclusively clarified the use of multiple identities or the discrepancies in official records. The case underscores the need for transparent legal and procedural scrutiny.