Supreme Court rejects Anas' application in defamation suit against Kennedy Agyapong

Anas had sought the nullification of the High Court's decision, which dismissed his defamation suit against Agyapong. The suit stemmed from public statements and a broadcast by Agyapong accusing Anas of engaging in evil practices and blackmail under the guise of investigative journalism.

In a 3-2 majority decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Anas' application, with Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, Justices Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, and Samuel Asiedu forming the majority.

The court rejected Anas' argument that Justice Baah lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit and was biased against him. The full reasoning behind the decision was later filed at the court's registry and made public.

Justice Baah's High Court judgment, dated March 15 last year, found that Agyapong's statements, though potentially defamatory, were factual and thus not defamatory under the defense of justification.

The judge also described Anas' investigative work as "investigative terrorism" rather than journalism, suggesting Anas had the power to cause the removal of a president through his investigations.

The Supreme Court, however, held that Justice Baah's statements, while strong, were not indicative of bias. Justice Asiedu, in authoring the court's decision, stated that the judge's remarks were based on an analysis of the evidence before him, which is a judge's duty in such matters.

The court emphasized that Justice Baah's statements were not made in a biased manner but were a result of his assessment of the evidence.

Chief Justice Torkornoo concurred with the majority, noting that Justice Baah's statements were his findings based on the evidence presented. She emphasized that any challenge to these findings should be done through the appellate court, as the Supreme Court could not reevaluate the evidence in a judicial review application.

In dissenting opinions, Justices Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu and Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi disagreed with the majority's stance. Justice Kulendi argued that Justice Baah's words showed clear prejudice against Anas, particularly as the civil matter ended up with criminal findings against him.

Justice Amadu raised concerns that the majority's decision would undermine the Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction as prescribed by the Constitution.

Read full article