CASE BRIEF
ANAS A. ANAS AND KENNEDY AGYAPONG
On 18th June 2018 the Plaintiff, who identifies himself as a Lawyer and “an internationally
acclaimed investigative journalist”, brought an action of libel against the defendant; the member
of parliament for Assin Central Constituency, owner of several business interests and self-declared
anti-corruption crusader.The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has made several defamatory
statements calculated to damage his reputation and therefore brought the action seeking for
monetary damages to a sum of ghc25million. The Defendant on his part claimed that the statements
he made about the Plaintiff were factual and true opinions about him based on information he had
about the Plaintiff and therefore pledge the defense of fair comments and justification.
ISSUES
a) Whether the words uttered by defendant were capable of defamatory meaning.
b) Whether the words uttered by defendant were published to at least one person other than the
Plaintiff.
c) Whether the words made by defendant were in reference to the Plaintiff.
d) Whether the words actually defamed the Plaintiff.
HOLDINGS
The court held that the defendant was able to prove that his statements were fair and justified and
therefore the plaintiff’s defamatory action was dismissed.
REASONING
The court reasoned that the words uttered by defendant were capable of defamation because they
could damage or reduce the reputation of any citizen if it is established to be false and unjustified.
Again the court reasoned that, for a publication to be defamatory, it should be made to more than
one person besides the person alleging to have been defamed. In the instance case, it was
established by the admission of the defendant that the publication was made to several persons
besides the plaintiff. This satisfy one of the elements required to prove an action for defamation.
The court further reasoned that the nature of the publication in the instant case was such that any
objective listener of the defendant will think that the defendant was referring to the plaintiff.
The court stated as a matter of principle that comments though capable of defamatory meaning
cannot actually defame if they are proven to be fair and justified. In the instance case, the
comments made by defendant were proved to be fair and just based on the evidence adduced and
they could not have defamed the Plaintiff. Consequently, the claim for damages by Plaintiff was
dismissed.
Comments / Critics
The judge could have just base on the fact that the Plaintiff could not discredit defendant's claims
for his judgement, from the ruling the judge used words capable of defamatory meaning on the
Plaintiff such as "investigative terrorism." He was not fair in terms of the choice of words used
which makes it look like he was being emotional than objective.