How many of holier-than-thou people don’t watch nude photos online? – Agyenim-Boateng

A former Deputy Minister of Information James Ageynim-Boateng has asked in relation to the sentencing of Akuapem Poloo that, how many of the holier-than-thou complaining don’t feast their eyes on nude photos from online.

After the court sentenced Akuapem Poloo on Friday, April 16, Mr. Agyenim-Boaten who pleaded for clemency for the actress said in a tweet that “How many mothers hide their nudity from their sons and daughter? (Of course, this got published). And how many of the holier-than-thou complaining bunch don’t feast their eyes on nude photos from online, print and other sources? Spare a thought for #AkuapemPoloo and her son.”

He further stated “This is not about Akuapem Poloo. This is not about a bad or an unfair court (the court follows the dictates of the law).

“This is about calling for reforms in our criminal justice system. For how long will people be jailed because of situations like Akuapem Poloo found herself in?”

Socialite Rosemond Alade Brown, popularly known as Akuapem Polio, has received a 90-day prison sentence after being found guilty of stripping naked in front of her seven-year-old son.

The judgement was given on Friday, April 16 by an Accra Circuit Court.

The single mother pleaded guilty to all three counts, one of which is publication of obscene material in 2020.

She is supposed to spend 90 days in prison for each count but the terms are to run concurrently.

On Wednesday, April 14, Akuapem Poloo was convicted on her own plea but asked to go for a pregnancy test before judgement was given.

The test came out negative.

In pronouncing judgement, Justice Christiana Cann considered some extenuating circumstances such as the fact that the wailing Rosemond Brown has had no brush with the law and the fact that she is a single mother and the trauma her son would be going through.

The case was brought before the police in June 2020 by the Executive Director of Child Rights International, Bright Appiah.

He cited Section 2 of the Children’s Act, demanding that the enforcement of the dignity of the child.

According to the judge, the accused did not consider the dignity of her son and her act not only affected his dignity but morally corrupted his mind as well as those who came into contact with the picture.