A dramatic moment unfolded at the High Court, Family Division, Accra, when businessman Richard Nii Armah Quaye (RNAQ) publicly distanced himself from socialite and musician Mona Faiz Montrage, popularly known as Hajia4Real, in the course of ongoing litigation with his former wife, Joana Quaye.
The revelation emerged during proceedings on Tuesday, 2 June 2026 when RNAQ rejected assertions that Hajia4Real is his concubine, stating that their relationship is one of friendship.
In Paragraph 19 of Affidavit in Opposition, RNAQ stated:
“Furthermore, the description of Mona Montrage as my concubine is not only misleading and false but is a factual inaccuracy as she is not my concubine and even more so, I cannot be said to have a concubine as an unmarried man…”
The declaration was made during the court proceedings and formed part of the matters under consideration in the case. The statement attracted public attention due to prior public discussion concerning the relationship between RNAQ and Hajia4Real.
The dispute forms part of an ongoing maintenance battle against RNAQ filed by his former wife, Joana Quaye. The first concerns an application for maintenance pending appeal and a variation of custody and access arrangements. The second seeks an injunction pending appeal.
Joana Quaye is seeking, among other reliefs, orders restricting Hajia4Real’s access to the children of the marriage and limiting RNAQ’s access arrangements on grounds relating to the welfare and best interests of the children.
Representing Joana Quaye, former Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame presented arguments in support of the applications. Counsel urged the court to intervene to safeguard the welfare of the children and to address concerns raised by the Applicant regarding maintenance, access arrangements, and the alleged influence of Hajia4Real on the children.
According to Joana Quaye, the maintenance arrangements previously ordered by the court have not been complied with consistently. She alleges that the monthly maintenance sum of GH¢5,000 is frequently paid late, thereby creating difficulties in meeting the children’s educational, healthcare, nutritional, and other daily needs.
The Applicant further contends that the Respondent has, on several occasions, failed to discharge his obligations promptly and has raised concerns regarding the welfare of the children while they are in his care. Among the issues canvassed before the court were allegations relating to the children’s exposure to social media content and the role allegedly played by Hajia4Real in their lives.
Lawyers for RNAQ opposed the applications, arguing that the allegations made against their client and Hajia4Real are unsupported by credible evidence. They maintained that the existing court orders remain effective and that no sufficient basis has been established to justify a variation of the current access arrangements.
A feature of the proceedings was a dispute over video evidence exhibited by Joana Quaye. The Applicant argues that the videos demonstrate conduct and influences that warrant a review of the existing custody and access arrangements. RNAQ, however, disputes both the significance and interpretation of the videos and denies that they establish any improper conduct on the part of Hajia4Real.
At the centre of the application is Joana Quaye’s request for the court to reduce the extent of RNAQ’s access to the children and to restrain Hajia4Real from having contact with them. The Applicant maintains that the children are exposed to Hajia4Real during periods of access and that such exposure is not in their best interests. RNAQ denies those allegations.
After hearing submissions from both sides, the court adjourned the matter to 26 June 2026. On that date, the court is expected to view the video evidence relied upon by Joana Quaye and continue hearing arguments on the injunction application pending appeal.
The next hearing will address whether the evidence presented supports any variation of the existing custody and access arrangements and whether interim orders should be granted pending the final determination of the appeal.
