The recent decision by the Supreme Court to dismiss the application for Certiorari filed by investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas has sparked significant interest and debate within legal circles and the public domain. The application was filed to challenge the judgment of the High Court in a defamation action against Member of Parliament Kennedy Ohene Agyapong.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Eric Baah, had previously dismissed Anas’ suit for defamation against Agyapong, citing lack of merit. The Court acknowledged that the words spoken by Agyapong were factual and capable of defamation, but Anas was unable to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim.
In a surprising turn, Justice Baah went on to express his view that Anas was not engaged in investigative journalism, but rather "investigative terrorism." This strong statement, coupled with the award of a cost of GH¢50,000 against Anas, has further fueled the controversy surrounding this case.
Following the dismissal of the application for Certiorari by the Supreme Court, Anas and his legal team have expressed their intention to appeal against the judgment. The grounds for their appeal include the "absence of jurisdiction" and the "apparent or real likelihood of bias and impartiality on the part of the judge."
The panel of five, chaired by Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, ruled to dismiss the action by a majority decision. Justices Amadu Tanko and Yonni Kulendi descended, while Chief Justice Torkornoo, Justice Prof Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, and Justice Samuel Asiedu formed the majority.
It is important to note that no order was given regarding costs, despite a request from Counsel for Ken Agyapong for a cost of GHc20,000. The decision of the Court is expected to be available for parties to obtain on March 4, 2024.
This case has its roots in a defamation suit filed by Anas in 2018, seeking damages for defamatory materials published by Agyapong. The publications in question included statements made during a live program on Adom TV and via Oman FM, where Agyapong made various defamatory remarks against Anas.
The impact of these publications on Anas' reputation as a globally acclaimed investigative journalist and lawyer has been significant, leading to distress and embarrassment for him. The legal battle between Anas and Agyapong continues to draw attention and raise important questions about freedom of speech, journalistic integrity, and the legal protection of individuals' reputations.
As this case unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the complex intersection between freedom of expression and the protection of individual rights. The outcome of Anas' appeal and the broader implications of this case will undoubtedly be closely monitored by legal experts and the public alike.
-source starrfm | curated by Aisha Yakubu | Ghana Crimes
