The mother of the six-year-old child whose picture, together with her daughter, was published through various media, has filed a defamation suit against some 11 defendants seeking an order of the court to compel them to remove all the published materials concerning her and her little child.
Ms Karen Baaba Sam, in her action filed at the General Jurisdiction High Court today, Thursday, 24 July 2025, is seeking 11 reliefs from the court against the 11 defendants.
The defendants are MyDailyNewsonline, Prosper Kay, The Metro Lens, Rebisa Company Ltd., Isaac Boamah-Darko, The Canary, Prispee 2014 Ventures, and N.K. Ankomah, Current Issues, Devoted Zak Ventures, and Prosper Kay Agbenyenga.
Baaba’s pleadings
Ms Karen Baaba Sam narrates that the domestic abuse and custody dispute have been pending in the various courts since April 2024, follow years of persistent violent abuses suffered at the hands of her ex-partner and the little child’s father, named Kwadwo Adjei (popularly called Nana Adjei) which abuses compelled Plaintiff to terminate her relationship with the Nana Adjei.
“The Pending cases are yet to even proceed to trial and for judgments to be delivered by the respective courts, together with several associated suits that have since been filed.
“Pending the final determination of the domestic abuse and child custody case, the respective courts have made several interlocutory orders since April 2024, including one made on 24 March 2025 wherein the Plaintiff (Baaba Sam) was granted interim access to the little child on weekdays and the father was granted interim access on weekends.
“On 11 June 2025, the interim access orders were quashed by another court at the instance of the father (Nana Adjei), and following which Karen Baaba Sam exercised her rights and picked up her little child from school.
“21 days later and during the little child’s school vacation, she (Baaba Sam) was confronted with countless calls and panicked enquiries early morning of Wednesday 2 July 2025 from family members, friends, acquaintances, and colleagues enquiring about her and her child, their safety, and whereabouts.”
Ms Baaba Sam says further “that on or around 17 July 2025 and during the little child’s school vacation, she received countless calls and panicked enquiries from family members, friends, acquaintances and colleagues enquiring about the her and her child, their safety and whereabouts, and whereupon Plaintiff was informed that her photograph and video of herself and her child had been posted on 1st Defendant’s platform with the bold caption: “Runaway Mum! Baaba Sam Snatches Daughter, ‘Trafficks’ Her with Fergi` In Dramatic Run”.
“The 3rd Defendant also published on its 17 July 2025 edition of its newspaper the following caption: “Child Custody Battle; Baaba Sam In Another Contempt Suit.”
“The 6th Defendant also, on the same 17 July 2025, published My photograph on the front page of its newspaper with the bold caption: “Child Custody Battle: Baaba Sam Smuggles Child Out of Town.”
The 9th Defendant also, on the same 17 July 2025, published Ms Baaba Sam’s photograph on the frontage of its online publication with the bold caption: Child Custody Battle: Baaba Sam, Boyfriend Fergi Traffick Child Out of Town.”
Despite being different media outlets with various publishing houses, the Defendants published the same contents in their respective online platforms and/or newspapers and proceeded to describe her in their publications as defiant, deceptive, and a person engaging in appealing to public pity with conscience-soothing falsehoods, and in a manner suggesting a coordinated reckless and defamatory attacks of and concerning Ms Baaba Sam.
“The Defendants published the same statements in a concerted bid to damage Ms Baaba Sam’s reputation and proceeded to publish several disparaging statements, including the following:
“It is a troubling picture of defiance, deception, and disregard for the rule of law by a mother who has been appealing to public pity with conscience-soothing falsehood in a child battle.
“Not even the court conviction could stop her, for despite a judicial ruling issued on 11 June 2025, which restored custody to the father, Ms Sam allegedly stormed the child’s school that very day and took her away before the school day ended- without permission or court leave,” the affidavit in support of the application read in part.
“By these words, the Defendants meant, and their readers understood the publication to tell, that Ms Baaba Sam is engaging in falsehood in her child custody matter before the courts and violating court rulings.
“The Defendants portrayed her before right-thinking members of society as a defiant and deceptive party in the court proceedings and deceiving the public by disregarding legal processes in the proceedings ongoing in the various courts and in a manner to incite the pubic hatred against Ms Baaba Sam and also unlawfully interfering with the administration of justice.
“The publication portrayed Ms. Baaba Sam falsely as a person incapable of deciding what was in the best interests of her daughter. The publication is false, defamatory, grossly malicious, and an egregiously injurious misrepresentation of her, and the various records and processes pending in the domestic abuse and child custody cases in court,” Karen Baaba Sam stated in her pleadings.
Reliefs sought
To this end, Ms. Baaba Sam is seeking 11 reliefs from the court against the defendants. First, a declaration that the defendants’ publications are defamatory. Second, a declaration that the defendants’ publications violate the statutorily guaranteed rights of protection and security of the Plaintiff and her little child O.”
Third, “an order mandating the defendants to remove all materials published of and concerning the Plaintiff and her little child from all of the defendants’ various media platforms forthwith, and fourth, general damages for defamation.
Fifth, “general damages for the egregious violation of the guaranteed rights of protection and security of the Plaintiff and her little child. Sixth, “aggravated, punitive, as well as exemplary damages for the defendants` grossly unwarranted and unjustified publications.”
Seventh, “an order compelling the defendants to issue a written retraction of the defamatory statements and render an unqualified apology to the Plaintiff and her little child.
Eighth, “an order for defendants to publish the retraction and apology in a coloured, front-page publication in the Daily Graphic newspaper, and additionally through the same channels they published the defamatory statements on three consecutive occasions,
Ninth, “an order restraining the defendants from any further defamatory and otherwise injurious publications of and concerning the Plaintiff and her little child, tenth, “Plaintiff’s costs and legal fees for this action on a full recovery basis, and lastly, any other reliefs the court may deem fit.”
