Karen Baaba Sam
Ms Karen Baaba Sam, 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 yesterday, 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
According to court documents filed by Ms. Sam, the dispute between her and her former partner, Mr. Kwadwo Adjei—popularly known as Nana Adjei, has been pending before multiple courts since April 2024. The legal battles stem from what she described as years of persistent physical abuse suffered during their relationship, which eventually led to her decision to end the union.
She revealed that although several cases relating to domestic abuse and child custody are ongoing and yet to proceed to full trial, the courts had issued various interim rulings. One such order, granted on March 24, 2025, provided Ms. Sam with weekday access to the child, while the father was allowed weekend access.
However, on June 11, 2025, those interim access orders were overturned by another court upon the request of Mr. Adjei. Following the ruling, Ms. Sam stated that she exercised her right and picked up her daughter from school.
Subsequently, on July 2, 2025, during the child’s school vacation, Ms. Sam began receiving a wave of anxious calls from family, friends, and colleagues, who were concerned about her and her child’s whereabouts. According to her, the panic was triggered by a photograph and video of her and her daughter posted on the platform of the 1st Defendant, bearing the caption: “Runaway Mum! Baaba Sam Snatches Daughter, ‘Trafficks’ Her with Fergi In Dramatic Run.”
On July 17, 2025, three separate media outlets published similar front-page stories. The 3rd Defendant’s publication read: “Child Custody Battle; Baaba Sam In Another Contempt Suit.” The 6th Defendant also carried the headline: “Child Custody Battle: Baaba Sam Smuggles Child Out of Town.” The 9th Defendant’s online platform published: “Child Custody Battle: Baaba Sam, Boyfriend Fergi Traffick Child Out of Town.”
Ms. Sam alleged that despite being separate publications, the stories contained nearly identical language and defamatory themes—describing her as “defiant,” “deceptive,” and “manipulative,” while accusing her of appealing to public pity through “conscience-soothing falsehoods.”
The court filing described the publications as part of a “coordinated and reckless smear campaign” designed to tarnish her reputation and mislead the public into believing she had violated court orders and acted unlawfully in the custody matter.
Citing one excerpt, the lawsuit noted that the defendants claimed: “Not even the court conviction could stop her, for despite a judicial ruling issued on 11 June 2025… 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.”
Ms. Sam contended that the statements were not only false and misleading but have the potential to obstruct justice and negatively influence public opinion and ongoing legal proceedings. “The publications portray me as incapable of deciding what is in the best interest of my daughter,” she stated in her affidavit.
She further argued that the publications had caused significant emotional distress and reputational damage, and are a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and legal processes before the courts.
Reliefs sought
The suit is seeking, among other reliefs, a public retraction of the said defamatory publications, an apology, and damages for libel.
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.”
Ms Karen Baaba Sam
About The Author
