The Executive Director of Child Rights International, Mr Bright Appiah has denied demanding GHC200,000 from actress Rosemond Brown to open an account for her child.
According to reports by some bloggers, Mr Appiah asked Akuapem Poloo to open an investment account with GH¢200,000 for her son so that her case will be dropped.
However, the actress who could not provide that huge amount of money was sent to court later where she was given a 90-day jail sentence.
Speaking with Ekourba Gyasi Simpremu on Atinka TV’s morning show, Ghana Nie, Mr Appiah said, ”We have never asked anyone to give Child Rights International GH¢200,000 for the care of the child. We have never instructed anyone that we want to be a signatory to any account that they want to open.”
He stated that the case has been given to his lawyers and will later come out with further actions.
“I have never asked anybody to bring me GHC200,000 and this particular case is with the lawyers, because some people in academia that have voices ran commentaries on it, so at the appropriate time, we will come out with it.”
He added that, ”We don’t need that money for anything. Even with this case, we wanted to support the child, we even dedicated 10,000 for the support of the welfare of the child so how can an institution like that go to an extent of saying she should bring GHC 200,000. The Lawyers that came for arbitration for us to speak about the issue are still alive, they are not dead.”
Meanwhile, he said he does not have time to respond to everything people say, that is why he has been quiet about the issue, adding that the organization will go all length to protect every child irrespective of whoever is involved and will always do things in accordance with the laws.
Akuapem Poloo was sentenced to 90 -day imprisonment by the Accra Circuit Court for publishing her nude pictures with her son beside her son on social media.
She was jailed on Friday, April 16, 2021 by the Accra Circuit Court, presided over by Ms Christiana Mann.
The actress pleaded guilty to publication of obscene material contrary to the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), engaging in domestic violence, namely a conduct that, in any way, undermined another person’s privacy or integrity, contrary to Section 1(d) (iii) and 3(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2007 (Act732), and engaging in domestic violence, namely conduct that, in any way, detracted or was likely to detract from another person’s dignity and worth as a human being, contrary to Act 732.
But she is currently on a bail pending the court’s decision on the appeal filed on the 90-days jail sentence.
