General News
Petition filed for investigation into alleged impersonation of Adwoa Safo during parliamentary sittings
Three individuals have petitioned the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) to investigate allegations that an unidentified woman may have appeared in Parliament while holding herself out as then Dome-Kwabenya Member of Parliament, Sarah Adwoa Safo, during parliamentary proceedings in November 2021 and March 2022.
The petition, dated September 15, 2026, was submitted by Emmanuel Mawanye Kotin, Edwin Godwin Buckman, also known as Ebo Buckman, and Dr Ramzi Inusah.
The petitioners are seeking what they describe as a formal and impartial investigation into the identity of the woman shown in video footage and photographs associated with the parliamentary sittings of November 30, 2021, and March 29, 2022.
The petition was addressed to the Director-General of the then Bureau of National Investigation (BNI), now operating as the National Intelligence Bureau, with copies sent to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Inspector-General of Police, Speaker of Parliament, Clerk to Parliament and Controller of the Ghana Immigration Service.
According to the petition, the disputed sittings involved Parliament’s consideration and approval of the 2022 Budget Statement on November 30, 2021, and the passage of the Electronic Transfer Levy (E-Levy) Bill, 2022 on March 29, 2022.
The petitioners say video footage and still photographs circulated publicly during and after the November 2021 sitting, prompting some observers to question whether the woman occupying or associated with the Dome-Kwabenya parliamentary seat was actually Adwoa Safo.
Adwoa Safo, however, subsequently rejected the allegation and maintained that she was personally present in Parliament on the dates in question.
The petitioners stress that they are not presenting the allegation of personation as a fact. Rather, they want investigators to determine the identity of the woman in the disputed material and establish whether any criminal, security or parliamentary wrongdoing occurred.
They also acknowledge that Adwoa Safo’s denial is material evidence and should be considered fairly alongside the allegation.
A key concern raised in the petition is that, to the petitioners’ knowledge, the competing claims have not been resolved through a publicly reported forensic examination of the original video footage alongside Parliament’s contemporary attendance, access and security records.
They argue that an authoritative investigation could either clear Adwoa Safo and Parliament of what they describe as a continuing allegation or, if the allegation is substantiated, establish whether there were security failures, unlawful access, falsification of official records or assistance by other persons.
The petitioners also acknowledge the considerable time that has passed since the events occurred.
They argue, however, that the passage of time should not replace institutional fact-finding with speculation. They want investigators to determine what records were created, whether those records still exist and, where records have been destroyed, when and under what authorised retention or disposal policy that occurred.
The petition refers to Article 104 of the 1992 Constitution, which governs the determination of questions in Parliament and the applicable quorum.
The petitioners state that the mere presence of a non-member in the Chamber would not automatically invalidate a parliamentary decision.
They argue that any constitutional consequence would depend on evidence showing that the person was counted as a Member of Parliament, participated in a vote, affected the quorum or numerical result, or caused an official record to falsely reflect the presence or vote of the elected Member.
They further clarify that they are not asking investigators to declare the parliamentary proceedings invalid, noting that any such constitutional determination would be for a court with the appropriate jurisdiction.
The petition also refers to Section 134 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), which concerns personation.
It states that applying the provision would require proof of all the statutory ingredients, including the identity assumed by the person, the accused person’s knowledge and the intention required by law.
Depending on the evidence, the petition says, investigators could also uncover possible aiding and abetting, unlawful access, falsification or use of official records, or another offence.
The petitioners therefore want the facts investigated first and the appropriate legal characterisation determined from the evidence rather than beginning with a predetermined criminal charge.
The petition also recognises constitutional protections relating to parliamentary proceedings.
It cites Article 115 of the Constitution concerning parliamentary speech, debate and proceedings, as well as Parliament’s authority over contempt under Article 122 and the Speaker’s control of the Chamber and parliamentary records.
The petitioners say their complaint is not intended to challenge protected parliamentary speech or debate.
Instead, they say it concerns the alleged physical assumption of a Member’s identity by someone who may not have been a Member.
They have therefore asked investigators to work formally with the Speaker and Clerk to Parliament and obtain relevant parliamentary records through lawful processes that respect parliamentary privilege and institutional autonomy.
The petition makes a distinction between the proposed investigation and previous legal proceedings concerning the E-Levy.
It notes that Supreme Court proceedings challenging the passage of the Electronic Transfer Levy involved a different parliamentary sitting and issues concerning quorum and proof.
The petitioners say they are not seeking to reopen those proceedings or invalidate the E-Levy legislation, which has since been repealed.
Instead, their request is limited to the alleged personation during the November 30, 2021 proceedings and the March 29, 2022 sitting at which the E-Levy Bill was passed, as well as any criminal, security or institutional responsibility arising from the alleged conduct.
The petition identifies several specific matters for investigation.
Investigators are being asked to establish:
- The true identity of the woman shown in the original parliamentary video and photographic material from November 30, 2021 and March 29, 2022.
- Whether Adwoa Safo was physically present in Parliament at the relevant times and whether she entered through an authorised access point.
- The provenance, completeness and authenticity of the disputed recordings, including whether publicly circulated copies were edited, compressed, mislabelled or taken from another date.
- The relevant Hansard, Votes and Proceedings, division or voting records, attendance registers, accreditation records, CCTV recordings, official broadcast footage, access-control logs and security occurrence books.
- Whether the woman shown spoke, voted, was counted for quorum, signed any record, used a Member’s access credentials or otherwise participated in parliamentary business.
- Whether any parliamentary official, Member, security officer or another person can identify the woman or explain her entry, presence or movements.
- Whether anyone knowingly facilitated, authorised, encouraged, concealed or subsequently falsified a record connected to the alleged conduct.
- Whether relevant records still exist and, if they do not, the applicable retention policy, date and authority for their destruction or disposal.
- Whether the evidence establishes personation or another offence, security breach, contempt or misconduct, and identifies anyone responsible.
The petitioners are asking for a preliminary assessment, followed, if the evidential threshold is met, by a formal criminal investigation.
They are also seeking formal liaison with the Speaker and Clerk to Parliament to ensure the lawful preservation, identification and production of relevant records.
Other requests include:
- Forensic authentication and comparison of the original recordings with publicly circulated copies.
- Interviews with Adwoa Safo and relevant Members of Parliament.
- Interviews with parliamentary officials, security personnel, media personnel and other identifiable witnesses.
- Investigation into possible facilitation, unlawful access, falsification of records, concealment or related criminal conduct.
- Referral of matters falling exclusively within Parliament’s disciplinary or contempt jurisdiction to the Speaker.
- Referral of any prosecutable offence to the Attorney-General in accordance with the law.
- Written acknowledgement of the petition and, subject to lawful confidentiality requirements and the rights of affected persons, communication of the eventual outcome to the petitioners.
The petitioners say they are prepared to provide complete, unedited copies of relevant recordings and documents in their possession.
They have also offered information concerning the source and chain of custody of the materials and requested an opportunity to make a formal statement and identify the specific portions of the material on which the petition is based.
They stressed that the investigation should be conducted without a public presumption of guilt, arguing that the public interest is served both by clearing a person who has been wrongly accused and by ensuring accountability where credible evidence establishes wrongdoing.
The petition was signed by: Emmanuel Mawanye Kotin, Edwin Godwin Buckman (Ebo Buckman), Dr Ramzi Inusah
Copies of the petition were also directed to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Inspector-General of Police, Speaker of Parliament, Clerk to Parliament and Controller of the Ghana Immigration Service.
The petition includes a schedule of proposed annexures covering the disputed video footage, still images, source and publication records, official parliamentary broadcast recordings, Hansard and Votes and Proceedings, a statement or interview from Adwoa Safo, witness information and any recent material that prompted the petition.
It also lists links to recordings identified as relating to the parliamentary proceedings of November 30, 2021 and March 29, 2022.