Investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas claims that the trial judge who presided over the defamation case against Assin Central Member of Parliament Kennedy Agyapong behaved as though Anas were on trial for a crime. Former Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu has responded to this claim.
Martin Amidu claimed that because the case involved criminal activity, the judge was justified in making such a judgment.
In his response to the verdict, Anas stated that a comprehensive examination of the court’s ruling revealed that the judge had entered the field of criminal prosecution.
“After carefully studying the court’s ruling, my team and I are of the opinion that the judge overstepped his bounds and entered the fray, making statements about me that would normally be reserved for criminal proceedings.
“He also defended the MP’s allegations that I killed 20 Chinese nationals and JB Danquah. In response to the ruling, Anas stated in a video tape, “We are filing an appeal because there was no proof presented.
Investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas’ GH25,000,000 defamation lawsuit against Kennedy Ohene Agyapong was dismissed by the Accra High Court on March 15th.
Anas Aremeyaw Anas failed to establish that Ken Agyapong slandered him by screening the documentary “Who Watches the Watchman,” the judge, Justice Eric Baah, ruled. Instead, the documentary revealed questionable business dealings that Anas and his friends were engaged in.
After Anas sued the New Patriotic Party (NPP) lawmaker in 2018 for allegedly defaming him, this happened.
In order to make up for the false information the MP published about him, Anas asked the court to grant him GH25 million against Mr. Agyapong.
The court came to the conclusion that Anas was engaging in “investigative terrorism” rather than investigative journalism and that Agyapong had the right to label Anas “a blackmailer, corrupt, extortionist, and nasty.”
Judge Baah declared, “I deem the plaintiff’s [Anas Aremeyaw Anas] allegations to be without merit, and they are hereby dismissed.”
In a statement in response to this situation, Mr. Martin Amidu, a former attorney general, stated: “Anas A. The judiciary did not need Anas to file a defamation lawsuit against Kennedy Agyepong at any level of the legal system. He made the decision deliberately and knowingly, with the hope of winning the case.
“Every party that loses in trial court has the right to appeal if he believes there are grounds to do so against the judgment of the trial court. Both parties have the option to appeal a decision to the Supreme Court as long as they refrain from abusing the legal system by filing frivolous claims and appeals.
However, whether or not the losing party later files an appeal against the ruling, a losing party or his allies who accuse the trial judge, the court, or the administration of justice as a whole of partiality or impropriety commit the crime of scandalizing those institutions and are in contempt of court.
The situation is governed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of REPUBLIC v. MENSA-BONSU & OTHERS, EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [1995-96] 1 GLR 377.
“Anas A. A lawyer named Anas co-founded Cromwell Gray LLP with William.
Agyebeng, who is now the Special Prosecutor, and his allies seemed to believe that when a trial results in something unexpected, the trial judge must be demonized and attacked as justification for appealing.
According to reports, the plaintiff stated, among other things, regarding the decision that was made against him, “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 arena and made a criminal pronouncement about me as if I were standing a criminal trial.
“The criminal conduct included in the civil defamation case that Anas A. Anas voluntarily presented before the trial court was the subject of the civil trial, and the trial judge was required to rule on it.”
How might the trial judge accomplish that without applying the burden of proof standards of evidence, which every trial court must take into account when reaching a conclusion on the evidence?
The belief that he is exercising judicial power by carrying out his judicial duties the 1992 Constitution’s guarantee, the trial judge had waded into the field of Conflict is an assault on the judge’s independence and impartiality and is considered a vile abuse of the legal system.
One who believes in their cause will subtly make an appeal. without creating a political scene to maintain face.