<<Print>>

The presiding judge in a GHC25 million defamation case filed against the Member of Parliament for Assin Central ruled that the accusations made against the plaintiff, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, were appropriate.

The judge, Judge Eric Baah, concluded that the MP Kennedy Agyapong‘s accusations against the undercover investigative journalist accurately reflect the type of job the journalist undertakes.

The judge, who dismissed the suit brought by Anas, explained that what the journalist practices as investigative journalism is rather ‘investigative terrorism.’

By this, he ruled that it was justified for Kennedy Agyapong to describe his tactics as corrupt.  Justice Eric Baah stressed that the MP was justified to refer to Anas as “a blackmailer, corrupt, an extortionist, and evil.”

Dismissing the case, the judge said, “I find claims by the plaintiff (Anas Aremeyaw Anas) meritless and they are hereby dismissed,” the report added.

Background

Sometime in 2018, the ace international investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas dragged the Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin Central, Mr Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, to court for defaming him.

Anas was asking the High Court to award aggravated damages to the tune of GH¢25 million arising from defamatory materials published by the MP.

He said the MP had been publishing materials in his bid to discredit him after releasing an explosive piece on the rot in Ghana football.

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

A journalist, Mr Listowell Yesu Bukarson, has been granted the lawful attorney to stand in for Anas.

Publications

The publication complained of are 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.