Court dismisses Anas defamation suit against Kennedy Agyapong

 

An High Court in Accra has dismissed a defamation suit filed by investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, against the Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin Central, Mr Kennedy Ohene Agyapong.

In a ruling today, March 15, the Court presided over by Justice Eric Baah, a Court of Appeal judge sitting with additional responsibility as a High Court Judge, dismissed the case for lacking merit.

According to the judge, although the words spoken against Anas were factual and capable of defamation, he could not prove same.

“From the above, I hold that the plaintiff is a blackmailer who uses blackmail to extort money from his opponents and people he does not like.

"What the plaintiff is doing is not investigative journalism but investigative terrorism,” the presiding judge, who awarded cost of GH¢50,000 against Anas said.

Background

In 2018, Investigative journalist Anas, filed a defamation suit against Mr.Kenedy Agyapong, , asking the High Court to award aggravated damages to the tune of GH¢25 million arising from defamatory materials published by the MP.

According to him, the MP had been publishing materials in his bid to discredit him. At the time, the investigative journalist had released an explosive piece on Ghana football title Number 12.

Displeased with the MP’s actions, Anas through his lawyer sued Mr Agyapong for the award of general damages for defamation in the defendant’s publications.

Publications

The publication complained of are a May 29, 2018, live programme in Twi on Adom TV, where Mr Agyapong categorically stated that Anas was a blackmailer, corrupt, an extortionist and evil.

According to the statement of claim, the defendant, in a similar manner, published defamatory words on May 31, 2018, via Oman FM, a private radio station owned by the defendant.

The statement of claim also stated that the defendant published more defamatory materials against the plaintiff via other platforms to the extent of releasing pictures purported to be those of the investigative journalist in his bid to blow the latter’s cover.

Reputation injured

The plaintiff complained that in consequence, his reputation, especially as a lawyer and globally acclaimed investigative journalist, has been egregiously damaged resulting in debilitating distress and embarrassment.

“Further, he has been inundated with numerous calls from business associates, journalists around the world, social relations, friends, outright strangers, and he has had to answer very mortifying questions,” the statement of claim said.

It said the defendant published the words complained of knowing them to be false and reckless.

 

It further pointed out that the defendant published false and reckless statements to benefit him as a politician, as well as to direct traffic to his media channels.

Lynching

The defendant, the plaintiff said, incited the public against him by asking that he be lynched.

"The defendant knew that once the publications were made, they would be culled and reproduced on the websites of media houses and accessible to countless numbers of persons worldwide".

It continued that “the defendant well knew that once the words complained of were published on the World Wide Web, they could and would be accessed by a substantial but unquantifiable number of subscribers to the Internet around the world.”

According to the plaintiff, the defendant knew and intended that his publication of the words complained of should be so published and republished and/or such publication and republication was the natural and probable consequence of his publication and for that reason could be inferred that a large but an unquantifiable number of users read the defendant’s publications.

The statement of claim said the MP was malicious in his publication of the words complained of.

Particulars

Anas further argued that Mr Agyapong was persistent and emphatic as to the purported criminality, undesirability and dishonesty of the plaintiff.

“The defendant persisted and insisted that the falsehood he was knowingly peddling was the truth.

“The defendant was persistent and emphatic that he had in his possession the evidence to shore up his publications,” adding that “the defendant calculated the publication to disparage the plaintiff in his trade, business and profession.”

More to follow...