Re: DVLA personnel busted for document fraud

We respectfully write for and on behalf of the Legal Aid Scheme, and on behalf of the applicant herein, i.e. Dormbey Unubuenkye Kwame.

On October 26, 2010, The Chronicle published a story titled “DVLA personnel busted for document fraud.” The story was written by Dora Akyaa Asare, and appeared on Page 9 of your publication.

The article inaccurately lists applicant as complicit in a scheme to defraud the Driver, Vehicle and Licensing Authority (DVLA).

However, applicant was a witness, not a participant of this scheme. The article states: Undercover investigations conducted by personnel of the CID led to the arrest of the eight suspects, who were involved in the issuance of various fake documents.

They include Kwame Blay Nyanzu, Abdulai Yussif, Eric Kyei Atike, Nana Kwadwo Yissah and Selina Opoku.

Others are two National Service Personnel, David Adjei Brown and Dormbey Unubuenkye Kwame, and a retired Regional License Officer in the Ashanti Region, Alhaji Shaibu, who is currently at large.

This article was wrong. The Applicant was not arrested, charged with, or suspected of any crime. At the time these crimes were committed, applicant was completing his National Service by working at DVLA.

Applicant was called as a witness regarding this fraud. Applicant left his National Service with an excellent and unblemished record of service, including all ‘good’ and ‘very good’ marks on his closing evaluation.

The incorrect information published in your newspaper has damaged applicant’s reputation and caused him a great deal of embarrassment.
As you surely know, printing untrue and defamatory statements about a person is a libel which is actionable in court. Applicant asks that you immediately print a retraction clarifying that applicant was not arrested, nor is he suspected of any crime.

Signed: Selasi Kofi Fumeym, Lawyer for the Selection Committee

Editor’s note:
We insist that the story was supplied to us by the police, therefore, if it has turned out to be false as you claim, it is the security agency that has to answer for it not us.

It is important to also note that apart from two other papers that carried the same story from the same source, our reporter has never met the complainant in her life prior to the publication.

She could not have, therefore, manufactured the story just to tarnish the reputation of your client.

Click on a tab to select how you'd like to leave your comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *