I have not stolen anybody’s book – Martin Kpebu ‘exposes’ Paul Adom-Otchere

Listen to this article Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Renowned legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has slammed broadcaster Paul Adom-Otchere for accusing him of stealing a book he wrote together with lawyer Fred Kusim Awindaogo, the ‘Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana’.

Speaking in an interview with GhanaWeb on Tuesday, October 18, 2023, Martin Kpebu said that claims by Paul Adom-Otchere that he tried to steal the book from Fred is totally unfounded.

He added that the broadcaster showed how ignorant he was when he accused him of stealing on live TV.

“He said I have stolen somebody’s intellectual property; that is false. Look, I have not stolen anybody’s intellectual property. He (Adom-Otchere) didn’t understand what he was saying. When you say stealing, stealing is a criminal offence.

“To accuse somebody of a crime when there is no crime at all, itself is a big problem. It shows that he doesn’t understand what he was dealing with. That case is a civil case, so there is no element of stealing there,” he said.

Kpebu explained that his case with Fred was due to his view that he (Fred) failed to write the portion of the book he was supposed to write properly, which made him (Kpebu) rewrite virtually everything.

He added that the court ruled that the two of them had rights to the book, adding that Adom-Otchere was only engaging in mere propaganda.

“We went to court and the court said no; he has also written some so it is sufficient… the court decided that Fred has also contributed, so in that case, Fred can use the manuscript, and I can also use it. I have not stolen; it is not like he wrote the book and I’m going away with it.

“…the plaintiff went to court that they should collect the books from me and give him the manuscript. He lost that one. The court said no, Fred; you can use it, Martin too can use it. So, it is just propaganda Paul is interested in… Did the court say, Martin, you stole the boy’s book and so give it back to him? No!” he exclaimed.

Background:

High Court Judge Justice Kwaku Ackaah-Boafo, who also serves as a Justice of the Court of Appeal, issued a landmark judgment, preventing private legal practitioner and political commentator Martin Kpebu from claiming exclusive ownership of an unpublished book titled “Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana.”

According to Asaaseradio.com, the court has ruled in favour of the applicant in the case, Fred Kusim Awindaogo, who is also a private practice lawyer. This case, numbered GJ 429 2020, is titled “Fred Kusim Awindaogo (plaintiff) versus Martin Luther Kpebu (1st defendant) and Josephine Tekpertey (2nd defendant).”

In the judgment delivered on April 5, 2023, Justice Ackaah-Boafo highlighted the central dispute between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, both lawyers, over the ownership and copyright of the book, “Annotated Evidence Law of Ghana.”

While the plaintiff initiated the project and invited the 1st defendant to collaborate, the 1st defendant, Martin Luther Kpebu, argued that the plaintiff lacked the intellectual capability to be the book’s author.

Kpebu asserted that he had essentially rewritten all of the plaintiff’s work, making the final book his sole creation, not a joint effort.

Justice Ackaah-Boafo clarified the issues at hand, stating, “In my view, this court is called upon to deal with such issues as copyright and the allegation of breach of the agreement executed by the parties, and the allegation of bad faith by the 1st defendant (Martin Luther Kpebu).”

The plaintiff, Fred Kusim Awindaogo, presented 12 reliefs to the court in his lawsuit:

A declaration that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant are joint or co-authors of the book, tentatively titled “Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana,” based on the agreement between them.

A declaration that the 1st defendant’s attempt to remove the plaintiff’s name from the work is unfair, dishonest, and in bad faith constituting a breach of their agreement.

An order of perpetual injunction preventing the 1st defendant from claiming sole authorship of the book.

An order of perpetual injunction preventing the 1st and 2nd defendants from publishing the book without acknowledging the plaintiff as a co-author.

An order of perpetual injunction preventing the defendants from circulating the book without acknowledging the plaintiff’s co-authorship.

Justice Ackaah-Boafo’s court granted all five of these reliefs as requested by the plaintiff. The court ruled that the book, “Annotated Evidence Act of Ghana,” is a joint effort of both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, and they are co-owners and co-authors of the book. The final manuscript will be published under their joint names, in accordance with the terms of their agreement.

If the 1st defendant chooses not to publish the book jointly, the plaintiff is free to publish it independently.

By: www.ghanaweb.com