Rodney Nkrumah-Boateng (rodboat@yahoo.com)

My attention has been drawn to a news item about me and the firm I work for in the UK, IH Solicitors LLP.

This article was published in the News of The World, a British Sunday tabloid newspaper and subsequently culled and published by ghanaweb.com on 29 June 2009. I have been unable to react to the story until now because of professional engagements with tight deadlines. In the interests of my professional and personal integrity, I feel it is important to set the records straight.

On Thursday 18th June 2009, two Asian men came to our offices in East London and asked to see my principal, Mr. Iqbal, saying they needed immigration advice. I am the one that handles our immigration, family and civil litigation work so they were duly referred to me. Within the first couple of minutes, I sensed there was something not quite right about them-their body language, the minor inconsistencies and their very specific suggestions and demands, but I could not quite place my finger on it. I decided to play along with them to find out what was going on and in the process, gave them the assurance that I could provide what they wanted, i.e. ‘brides’ for marriage purposes with a view to circumventing the immigration rules. I had no intention of carrying this through as I do not and have never involved myself in such schemes. The objective was to get them to the point where there was sufficient evidence for us to call the police in and guarantee a prosecution.

The evidence in question would involve signing of forms and provision of money. After the conference, I spoke to my principal whilst they waited in the reception area. I told him about my discomfort with these men and what I had done. He agreed that we should give them enough bait to return the next day and went to speak to them to egg them on further. We had had people coming in on several occasions asking us if we arranged things like that and we were getting frustrated by people assuming that just because we were both from ethnic minorities and our client base has a huge ethnic minority flavour, we would no doubt be aware of and involved in such schemes, and we were determined to put a stop to it once and for all.

The men returned as expected the next day and we proceeded with the charade. A friend had helped arrange bait in the form of a lady friend. They then said they were going to get the money, having been satisfied with the girl, and they took her number. Our intention was to wait for them to return with the incriminating evidence- documents and money- and then call in the police. They never returned, and as far as we were concerned, that was the end of the matter. We assumed that they had perhaps caught on with our intentions.

We then became aware of the publication on Sunday 28 June 2009, having been alerted by a friend of mine. It was at this point that it became clear to us we had been victims of a vile, sting operation. Of course, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and admittedly, one may correctly argue that our lives would have been made simpler we had simply asked the men to leave when they stated what they wanted-preferably flying through the first floor window. But what may well be an error of judgment cannot in any way be substituted with an intention to commit an offence, and we are adamant that we had no intention to do so. It is easy and tempting to listen to consider the quotations in the news item and draw other conclusions in the absence of our version of events and our intentions as explained

The impression given in the report to the effect that we were running a syndicate and had been at it for years could not be further from the truth. As a firm, we have been in operation for two years, and in that period, we have submitted only FIVE applications to the Home Office on behalf of our clients for permission to marry, which is the first step for a non-EEA national who intends to marry a British or EEA national. Of these, two transferred their files to us from another firm. We know two of the five clients to have children with their partners and one was a student who was still here legally and wanted to marry her British boyfriend. This does not reflect a firm that has been running a ‘bridal service’ on behalf of illegal immigrants for five years, and no claim to that effect was made in the conversation that took place in my office. As for the impression created that all we do at our firm is to greedily lick our fingers and count £12,000 every week or so as another bride rolls off the conveyor belt, those who know me well will simply laugh and hoot with derision at the thought, and I will treat that suggestion with the contempt it deserves. In its ignorance of basic legal principles, the paper boasted in the article that we were bound to face criminal prosecution and be jailed when they handed their ‘dossier’ (i.e. a recording of the conversation) to the police, thereby adding another slimy, foul layer of sensation to the story. That is utter nonsense. Our offices were open for business the very next day after the article appeared in the papers. We have been fully staffed since the story broke and we are busily getting on with our work of representing our clients to the best of our ability. We are yet to receive a courtesy call from Her Majesty’s finest efficient boys in blue, with cold handcuffs snapping shut over our wrists and being bundled into police vans to be cast into hot, damp, fetid cells for onward transmission to prison to rot away, with the keys thrown into the bottom of the river Thames. Even if one were to take things at its highest and our version of events (together with our intentions) were to be disbelieved, it is instructive to note that what was said during the meetings is no basis on its own to bring about a prosecution, unless there is a corresponding act. It is trite law that for a person to be guilty of an offence, you must have the meeting of the actus reus( the act itself) and the mens rea ( the intention behind the act), and this crucial juxtaposition is missing here. Just because a person promises do something does not mean he can do it, intends to do it, or in indeed has done it and is therefore guilty of an offence.

Regarding the reporter of the news item, Mazher Mahmood I would say no more than respectfully direct readers to the link below and invite them to make up their own minds about one of the most discredited persons in British journalism, derided for his crude and unethical methods;

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/why-i-am-out-to-nail-mazher-mahmood-474264.html

I have just released my second book ‘Abrokyir Nkomo: Reflections of A Ghanaian Immigrant, to very encouraging reviews and sales levels, and after a successful launch in Ghana I am looking forward to its launch in London on 19th July 2009, whilst I work on my third book. Far from losing sleep over this shrilly news item and looking nervously over my shoulder at the prospect of the heavy, clammy hand of the law clamping on my shoulder for a ‘crime’, I am consumed with nothing but excitement and the hope that my new book will mark the opening of another rewarding chapter of my life.

I have enjoyed enormous support from those who know me best and who matter to me most-my family, friends and clients who were understandably worried about me when the story broke and realised later this was merely a sensational story of twisted facts and barefaced lies dressed up as news by a paper desperate for lurid headlines to sell its garbage. I was inundated with phone calls, text messages and emails, some from old friends I have not spoken to in a while, all frantic with worry, given the tone of the publication. I am truly grateful for their faith in me and confidence in my integrity.

I am proud of some of the successes chalked for my clients in different areas of law. Just like many legal professionals, I am determined to continue using the law in the best way I can and within the confines of the law and the ethics of the legal profession to assist my clients to meet their objectives. They deserve and expect no less.