GHAMRO: Carlos Sakyi, others file motion to set aside execution of court ruling

Eight of the board members of the Ghana Music Right Organisation (GHAMRO) will today appear in court to explain reasons why the court should set aside its ruling which went in favour of the plaintiffs, Nana Kwame Ampadu and 100 others.

The ruling follows an action by Nana Kwame Ampadu and the 100 musicians, composers, songwriters, music producers and music rights owners accusing Carlos Sakyi, Chairman of GHAMRO, of embezzling funds collected on behalf of music rights owners in Ghana.

They filed the motion on Thursday, May 15, 2014.

According to the writ of summons, Carlos Sakyi and other GHAMRO board members including Amandzeba Nat Brew, K.K. Kabobo and Mark Okraku Mantey have deliberately refused to organise even a single annual general meeting since May 2011 when they took office as interim board members.

In its ruling, the Human Rights Court ordered GHAMRO board headed by Carlos Sakyi to step aside.

The court said a new interim board, made up of Enoch Agyepong (a publisher), Nana Aboagye Dacosta (composer) and (Kwame Nsiah Apau – Okyeame Kwame (performer) should take over.

The Attorney General’s Department and the Copyright Office are also to nominate one person each to the interim GHAMRO board.

The board would operate for six months to ensure that structures are put in place for proper elections to be conducted to elect a permanent board for GHAMRO.

The defendants, John Mensah Sarpong, Carlos Sakyi, K.K Kabobo, Kwasi Agyepong, Daniel Adjei, Amanzeba Nat Brew, Okraku Mantey and Jonathan Kaakraba who are also board members of GHAMRO, filed the notice of stay of execution.

But after the ruling, the plaintiffs broke into the offices of GHAMRO and changed all the locks which, according to the defendants, is unlawful.

The matter according to defendants’ statement of claim was reported to the Ghana Police Service on July 12, 2014 because the said execution was carried without the officials of the honourable court.

The statement of claim said that the defendants were advised and verily believe that the execution carried out by the plaintiffs is unwarranted by law, illegal and ought to be set aside.