On Wednesday, March 15, 2023, an Accra High Court presided over by Justice Eric Baah dismissed a defamation case filed against Ghanaian politician Kennedy Agyapong by Anas Aremeyaw Anas.
According to the judge, Anas Aremeyaw Anas did not prove Ken Agyapong defamed him by airing the documentary – “Who watches the watchman” – but rather, the documentary exposed shady deals that Anas and his associates were involved in.
The court concluded that what Anas is engaged in is not investigative journalism but rather investigative terror!sm and that Mr. Agyapong was justified to call Anas “a blackmailer, corrupt, an extortionist, and ev!l”.
“I find the claims by the plaintiff [Anas Aremeyaw Anas) meritless and they are hereby dismissed” Justice Baah ruled.
The judge also noted that the MP ought to be commended instead of being condemned for his sustained attacks on the journalist which resulted in the filing of a GH¢25 million defamation suit by Anas.
“In all honesty, the plot by plaintiff and his group in exhibit KOA4 has nothing to do with journalism. It was a scheme for grabbing power by the back door and satisfying plaintiff’s insatiable taste for power, publicity, fame, awards, and rewards.
“Since the president is an embodiment of the soul of the nation, any unwarranted plot out of nothing to entrap him to destroy his reputation and undermine his authority is reproachable. The attacks of defendant on plaintiff on that ground deserves commendation and not condemnation,” the judge said while making reference to some work done by Anas in the past for which Kennedy Agyapong in various pronouncements accused him of attempting to entrap some political figures in the sub-region.
“I hold in respect of exhibits KOA3 and KOA4, that any statements based on them were justified and passed the test of fair comment.
“In the result, the court finds established the defence of justification and fair comment in relation to the statements of defendant based on exhibits KOA1, KOA2, KOA3 and KOA4. Since those statements were justified, they could not have actually defamed the plaintiff,” Justice Baah added.