Anas is asking for damages, costs, including lawyers’ fees over defamatory comments made by Ken Agyapong on 26 Feb. 2019 on Adom TV which, he says, injured his reputation as a lawyer and a globally-acclaimed investigative journalist.
Investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas has sued the Multimedia Group Limited and three of its staff for defamation.
Anas is asking for damages, costs, including lawyers’ fees over defamatory comments made by Assin Central MP Kennedy Agyapong on 26 February 2019 on Adom TV (a television channel of Multimedia) which, he says, injured his reputation as a lawyer and a globally-acclaimed investigative journalist.
The comments were made during what the suit describes as a “one-sided conversation” about a then-yet-to-be premiered investigative documentary on galamsey (illegal mining) produced by Anas.
Anas has given the power of attorney to his lawful attorney, Listowell Yesu Bukarson to prosecute the matter and testify on his behalf.
The suit reads: “In consequence, the plaintiff’s reputation, especially as a lawyer and a globally acclaimed investigative journalist, has been egregiously damaged and he has suffered debilitating distress and embarrassment. Further, he has been inundated with numerous calls from business associates, journalists associations around the world, social relations and friends and outright strangers, and he has had to answer very mortifying questions”.
The suit further argued that the three Multimedia staff, Benjamin Kwabena Asante known as Omanhene (presenter of Adom TV and host of Badwam Mpensempensemu), Dominic Kissi Yeboah (television programme producer at Adom TV and producer of Badwam Mpensempensemu) and Abdulai Awudu (General Manager of Multi TV), allowed the defamatory material to be published about him by Mr Agyapong.
According to the statement of claim, the defendants, by a guest they had invited on popular Adom TV morning political show Badwam Mpensempensemu, broadcast and published and or/caused to be broadcast and published defamatory words on the plaintiff.
The comments, the suit argued, were understood to mean that the plaintiff is a criminal engaged in illegal mining, a nation wrecker, an evil person involved in bribery, corruption, extortion and impersonation of army officers.
“In addition, the defendants did nothing to prevent or stop their guest from publishing the words complained of against the plaintiff. In the least, they failed to even distance themselves from their guest and the words he was publishing; but rather offered him their media platform on a one-sided conversation to run on and on in publishing the words complained of”.
Anas says in addition, the defendants did nothing to prevent or stop their guest from publishing the defamatory words and went on to upload the programme and its contents onto their various Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) on the World Wide Web.
“The defendants well knew or ought reasonably to have known that once the programme was uploaded on the internet, it would be culled and reproduced on the websites of other media houses and accessible to countless number of persons worldwide.”