Anas’ $18 million damages against Kennedy Agyapong: $5 million in supposed damages, $5 million in actual losses, and $8 million in punitive damages, and where the money can come from.
In a landmark decision that has reverberated across Ghana’s media and political landscape, investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas has been granted $18 million in damages against Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, a prominent businessman and former Member of Parliament for Assin Central.
The ruling is one of the greatest defamation awards in recent legal history, raising concerns about its enforcement and the ramifications for Ghana’s freedom of expression.
Case Origins and Allegations
The court battle began when Anas sued Agyapong over a series of allegations made by the politician between May 29, 2018 and November 20, 2018, which were then reiterated during a September 7, 2021 appearance on “The Daddy Fred Show.”
According to court documents, Agyapong made various defamatory statements against the journalist, including calling him a “criminal,” stating he was “behind the murder of Ahmed Suale,” and claiming Anas was “responsible for the death of multiple Chinese nationals.”
These claims arose in the heels of Anas’ bombshell documentary “Betraying the Game,” also known as “Number 12,” which exposed corruption in Ghanaian football. The documentary implicated a number of high-ranking officials, including members of Agyapong’s New Patriotic Party (NPP).
In reaction, Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, a Member of Parliament for Assin Central at the time, initiated a public campaign against Anas and repeated similar allegations on the show in the United States.
The claims were the basis for the five counts of defamation in the case filed in Essex County, New Jersey.
The verdict breakdown:
The court’s verdict granted a total of $18 million in damages, meticulously arranged as follows:
$5 million in anticipated damages: Recognising the underlying injury to Anas’ professional image.
$5 million in real damages: Compensating specific losses caused by Agyapong’s remarks
Punitive damages totalled $8 million. Almost half of the total award, indicating the court’s view of the exceptional gravity of the defamatory statements.
This stratified approach to damages reflects the court’s assessment of both Anas’s harm and the need to prevent similar defamatory behavior in the future.
Presumed damages recognise the inherent harm to Anas’ reputation, whereas actual damages compensate for specific losses suffered as a result of Agyapong’s statements.
The substantial punitive element, which accounts for nearly half of the total award, sends a clear message about the gravity with which the court viewed the defamatory statements, especially given Agyapong’s position as a public official and his extensive reach through various media platforms.
The court determined that Agyapong acted with “actual malice,” given that he had previously been cross-examined in Ghana and admitted to the falsity of some of his statements, but continued to make similar allegations during the 2021 interview.
The defendant’s assets under the jurisdiction of the judgment
A document obtained by 3News shows extensive property holdings allegedly owned by Kennedy Agyapong within the jurisdiction, potentially making enforcement of the judgement more feasible than previously thought.
According to the property check report obtained by our team, Agyapong owns at least three significant properties in the area, including a residence at 7 Walter Street in West Orange, New Jersey, which he purchased for $980,000 in 2007. This property is currently assessed at $906,200, with a market value of around $1,082,676 as of 2020. According to records, the property was financed with a mortgage of $730,000.
Additional properties include a residence at 92 E Bigelow Street in Newark, purchased in 2005 for $490,000, and a property at 134 S Grove Street in East Orange, purchased in 2005 for $365,000.
These US-based assets give Anas a tangible way to enforce the judgment. If Agyapong fails to pay the court’s award voluntarily, Anas’ legal team may place liens on these properties or initiate foreclosure proceedings to recover the damages owed.
The property search revealed that Agyapong claims to own 147 properties in Ghana, primarily in Accra, Tema, and Kumasi, according to statements he made during a Joy News television interview. While these assets are not subject to US jurisdiction, they demonstrate his significant wealth.
Kennedy’s overall assumed financial capacity, should the case hold.
Recent financial profiles place Kennedy Agyapong’s net worth between $120 million and $400 million, according to multiple sources with the politician himself claiming in October 2023 that his net worth exceeds $400 million.
His wealth stems from an extensive business empire that includes real estate, media interests, and various enterprises.
Agyapong’s business portfolio is said to encompass numerous companies including Gold Coin Communication, The National Newspaper, multiple radio stations (Spice FM, Ashh FM, Oman FM), Net 2 TV, the Hollywood Shopping Centre, and several other ventures.
Kennedy Agyapong has openly discussed his property holdings, stating in interviews that “I invest in buildings. Cars are not investments. I have 147 houses, but I don’t live in all of them. I rent them. In real estate, you don’t make that much money, but it makes you comfortable.”
The remittitur question and motion for mistrial
Following the verdict, Agyapong’s legal team has moved to vacate the default judgment and filed a motion for mistrial.
In a video from one of the sessions court session, the judge stated: “The court is denying a request for a mistrial, and everyone can file motions at the appropriate time, and the court will address everything after the motions are filed appropriately and then responded appropriately.”
Agyapong has several potential legal avenues available:
Remittitur: His legal team may request the court to reduce the damages on grounds that they are excessive or disproportionate.
Motion for Mistrial: They could argue procedural errors or prejudicial conduct affected the trial’s outcome.
Jurisdictional Challenge: As evidenced by court filings in April 2023, Agyapong’s attorneys have argued that the case belongs in Ghana, where a similar defamation case between the same parties was recently dismissed.
Legal experts indicate that even if a remittitur (reduction of damages) is partially granted, the considerable property holdings inside the jurisdiction provide a clear road to enforcing at least a portion of the verdict.
It’s worth remembering that in March 2023, a Ghanaian High Court dismissed a similar GH₵25 million defamation action that Anas had filed against Agyapong.
The court concluded that Anas failed to prove that Agyapong defamed him by airing the documentary “Who watches the watchman.”
The Ghanaian court also concluded that Agyapong produced adequate evidence proving that Anas exploited discoveries from his work to seek money from those implicated in his investigations, with those who paid reportedly being shielded from public exposure.
Implications for enforcement and appeals
The huge discrepancy between the Ghanaian court’s denial of comparable claims and the U.S. court’s hefty damages decision creates a difficult international legal issue.
While Agyapong’s U.S. assets provide a potential avenue for partial enforcement, the cross-jurisdictional character of the issue presents substantial problems since collecting the full judgement may entail extra legal steps across international boundaries.
For Anas, whose investigative work has often targeted prominent persons, the U.S. judgement marks a considerable vindication, even as he faces a contrary finding in his native nation.
For Agyapong, the case emphasizes the possible legal liability that comes with overseas business and property interests, especially while he is rumored to still be nursing presidential ambitions towards the 2028 elections.
Despite this initial judgment in favour of Anas, the legal battle is far from over and is expected to continue to unfold and will likely establish important precedents for cross-border defamation claims and enforcement of foreign judgments, particularly in cases involving public figures, journalists, and political speech
Credit: 3news.com
