When we discuss the actions of Akosua Serwaa, those associated with “Team Legal Wives,” and their legal representatives, some dismiss our concerns as mere personal animosity or unfounded criticism.
However, the accumulating evidence of alleged misrepresentation and apparent attempts to deceive both the Ghanaian public and the courts demands serious attention. What we are witnessing is a pattern of conduct that strikes at the heart of legal integrity and raises fundamental questions about the abuse of judicial processes.
The recent events surrounding the application for a Letter of Administration in relation to Daddy Lumba’s estate exemplify these concerns with alarming clarity. What transpired reveals not merely procedural irregularities, but what appears to be a calculated attempt to manipulate the legal system through fraudulent representation—an offence that undermines the very foundation of judicial trust.
The lawyers representing Akosua Serwaa filed an application to the court seeking a Letter of Administration concerning Daddy Lumba’s estate/properties. On the surface, this might appear to be a routine legal matter—families regularly apply for such letters to manage deceased persons’ estates. However, the manner in which this application was constructed reveals a deeply troubling approach.
The application was filed in the names of three individuals:
- Akosua Serwaa – the primary applicant
- Ernestina Fosu aka Akosua Brempongmaa – listed as a co-applicant
- Charlyn Fosu – Daddy Lumba’s daughter, also listed as a co-applicant
This is where the alleged fraud becomes apparent. Under Ghanaian law and standard legal practice, when multiple persons are named as applicants in a legal filing, there exists a fundamental presumption and requirement: each named party must have consented to the application being made in their name, must have agreed to the contents of any supporting affidavits, and must have instructed the lawyers to act on their behalf. This is not merely a procedural nicety—it is a cornerstone principle of legal representation and personal agency.
By including Charlyn Fosu’s name as a co-applicant, Akosua Serwaa’s lawyers were representing to the court—a representation that carries significant legal weight—that:
- Charlyn Fosu had consented to the application being made.
- She had agreed with the claims and statements contained in the application.
- She had instructed them to act as her legal representatives.
- She was aligned with the other applicants in seeking the Letter of Administration.
However, the reality, as subsequently emerged, was different. Charlyn Fosu had no knowledge whatsoever of this application. She had not consented to her name being used. She had not instructed these lawyers to represent her. She had not agreed to any affidavit being sworn in her name. In essence, her identity and legal standing were appropriated without her knowledge or permission in what can only be described as an act of legal impersonation.
Upon discovering that her name had been fraudulently included in a legal application without her consent, Charlyn Fosu took decisive and proper action. She engaged her own independent legal counsel and instructed them to approach the court with a critical intervention. Her lawyer appeared before the court to make an unequivocal statement: his client had neither consented to being listed as an applicant nor had she authorised any affidavit to be sworn in her name.
This intervention was not merely procedurally significant—it was fundamentally honest and legally necessary. Charlyn Fosu had every right to clarify to the court that she was not a party to this application and that her name had been misused. Her actions demonstrate both personal integrity and respect for the judicial process, standing in stark contrast to the conduct of those who had misappropriated her identity.
Imagine the position in which Charlyn Fosu found herself: her mother and associated parties had attempted to bind her to a legal application concerning her own father’s estate without even the courtesy of informing her, let alone obtaining her consent. This is not merely a family dispute or a miscommunication—it is an alleged act of fraud that could have bound her to legal positions she did not hold and commitments she did not make.
Faced with this revelation, the court had no choice but to act decisively. The application for the Letter of Administration was thrown out entirely. This outcome was not merely a procedural setback for Akosua Serwaa and her legal team—it was a judicial acknowledgement that the application was fundamentally flawed, built upon a foundation of misrepresentation that rendered it legally untenable.
Courts take such matters with utmost seriousness. The integrity of the judicial system depends upon the truthfulness of parties appearing before it. When lawyers make representations to a court, those representations are presumed to be accurate and made in good faith. The inclusion of Charlyn Fosu as a co-applicant was such a representation—one that turned out to be demonstrably false.
This incident, whilst shocking in its own right, does not exist in isolation. It appears to be part of a broader pattern of conduct by Akosua Serwaa, “Team Legal Wives,” and their associated legal representatives—a pattern characterised by attempts to manipulate public perception and court processes through misrepresentation and, allegedly, outright deception.
The question “Why all this fraudulent misrepresentation?” is not rhetorical—it demands an answer.
The law is the law–I didn’t make the law.
–Chris-Vincent Agyapong
