Anas Aremeyaw Anas has hinted at plans to appeal the decision by the Accra High Court to dismiss the Ghc25 million defamation suit he brought against Assin Central MP Kennedy Agyapong.
The investigative journalist had his suit dismissed by the court on grounds that it was meritless.
He has described the judgment as a travesty of justice.
The judge, Justice Eric Baah, described Anas’ investigative style as terrorism.
He also described the award-winning journalist as a blackmailer and extortionist and concluded that the MP was justified in his assertion in using the descriptions Anas was seeking relief for.
The journalist has announced his plans to appeal the judgment.
“Although the news about the dismissal of our defamation suit against the Member of Parliament was unexpected, I disagree with the judge’s reason both in law and the facts. My team of lawyers and I have carefully studied the judgment delivered by the court, and we are unanimous that the judge made an overreach and descended into the area, and made criminal pronouncement about me as if I was standing a criminal trial. He also justified the MP accusing me of the murder of the late JB Danquah, murder of 20 Chinese nationals, and a host of other crimes. We are filing an appeal because there was no evidence provided”, he said in a 2-minute video.
“It is the evidence in my work and the commitment to truth and justice that has always led me and prevailed against all the forces that have worked to pull us down. My team and I remain unwavering, despite the attacks and threats on our lives. We remain guided by the principles of fairness, integrity, and courage as we continue our investigation in the public interest. I strongly believe in the rule of law. The fight continues. Nothing will stop us from fighting corruption for mother Ghana”, Anas further added
The Judge in the case, Justice Eric Baah in a lengthy ruling, held that the plaintiff [Anas Aremeyaw Anas] failed to prove that Kennedy Agyapong defamed him by airing the documentary – “Who watches the watchman”.
The court further held that Agyapong provided sufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiff used the findings of his work to solicit money from persons implicated in the evidence gathered by him.