Ansah-Asare wins one loses one

Accra, June 29, GNA 96 Mr Kwaku Ansah-Asare, Former Acting Director of Ghana School of Law, won one and lost one of the two defamatory suits he brought against three media houses and three others at an Accra Fast Track High Court.

The defendants in the suits were Multi Media Broadcasting, operators of Joy FM; Despite Company Limited, operators of Peace FM, General Portfolio Limited publishers of the Chronicle newspaper; Mr John Yaw Opoku, a Legal Practitioner and Former Lecturer of Ghana Law School. The rest were Mr George Kyei Frimpong and Mr Kojo Omaboe.


Mr Ansah-Asare sent two cases of defamation in respect of two stories carried 'on the front page of the Chronicle Newspaper of 14th September, 2006 under the headlines 'Statesman Editor Failed but Was Cleared on Orders. Bomb Shell Revelation at Ansa Asare Probe. A23.8 Billion HIPC Cash Paid for Books Not Supplied - to an Accra Fast Track High Court.


With respect to the 93=A23.8 Billion HIPC Cash Paid for Books Not Supplied=94 the Trial Judge , Mr JusticeVictor Ofoe said the (Chronicle) =93went sensational publishing what was not said at the probe and what their investigations did not disclose. They were delinquent.=94 However, in the case of 'Statesman Editor Failed But Was Cleared On Orders=94 Justice Ofoe said he found the 93publication was in discharge of a social, moral, I will even add, legal duty to the public'.


He said: 93It is my view that the Defendants on the defence of qualified privilege have succeeded as I am of the view that they have succeeded also on the defence of fair comment.'


Justice Ofoe dismissed the case Ansah-Asare brought against Mr John Yaw Opoku with respect to 'Statesman Editor Failed But Was Cleared On Orders' and awarded five million cedis cost against Mr Ansah-Asare saying: 'Probably the Plaintiff did not have the opportunity to investigate the First Defendant's denial, which he clearly stated in the pleadings. If he had I believe he would not have made the First Defendant party to the suit at all. I will dismiss the Plaintiff's claim against the First Defendant.'

Consequently, Multi Media B and Despite Company were each awarded five million cedis cost against Ansah-Asare.


With respect to the 93=A23.8 Billion HIPC Cash Paid for Books Not Supplied, which he found the Defendants liable; Justice Ofoe said he would concern himself more on clearing the name of Ansah-Asare 93by ordering General Portfolio Limited; Kojo Omaboe and Kyei Frimpong to publish an apology and retraction of the offensive publication twice a week for two weeks on the same page. They should similarly carry the retraction and apology on the internet the same number of times. In further bid of clearing the Plaintiff's name, Justice Ofoe ordered Multi Media Broadcasting and Despite Company Limited to carry the apology and retraction that would be made in the same manner they carried the offensive publication.


The Court awarded 50 million cedis damages to Ansah-Asare.


On September 14, 2005, General Portfolio published in its newspaper headlined "Statesman Editor Failed but was cleared on orders, Bomb shell revelation at Ansa Asare probe and 3.8 billion cedis billion HIPC cash paid for books not supplied."


Multi Media Broadcasting and Despite Company Limited reviewed those publications.

Mr Asare, however, contended that those publications about him were defamatory and libellous since they seemed to portray that he unlawfully and dishonestly procured a pass for Otchere Darko.


In the second publication concerning the carting of monies to he (Mr Asare's office) portrayed him as a thief, who had stolen 3.8 billion cedis cash intended for the purchase of books for the Law School. In their response, General Portfolio, Mr Frimpong and Mr Omaboe stated that they reported what transpired at the public hearing of the Akamba Committee set up probe activities of at the Ghana School of Law to the public, who had the right to receive information on the proceedings. While General Portfolio, Mr Omaboe and Frimpong said they were discharging their constitutional duty to the public Multi media and Despite Company contended that they just reviewed the headlines and then a couple of stories underneath those headlines.


Delivering judgement, however, the court was of the view that that General Portfolio, Mr Frimpong and Omaboe should be held liable for publishing that 3.8 billion cedis were carried into Mr Ansah-Asare's office.


According to the Court "there was no evidence any monies were carried and no 3.8 billion cedis was carried in "Ghana must go" bag to Plaintiffs office," adding that the Defendants sensationalised that publication.


On the publication concerning Mr Gabby Otchere Darko, the Statesman newspaper Editor, the Court noted Mr Opoku declared that he only told the Akamba' Committee Probe that Mr Otchere Darko failed two of his exam papers.

According to the court, Mr Opoku never told the Committee that he (Otchere Darko) should be repeated neither did he inform it that he was passed on the orders of Mr Mr Ansah-Asare.


The Court queried General Portfolio, Mr Frimpong and Mr Omaboe where and how they had that information.


The Court said pieces of evidence gathered, indicated that Mr Otchere Darko had petitioned the General Legal Council to remark two of his exam papers (Taxation and Family Law) "I am in the position to find that the plaintiff Mr Ansah-Asare breached the known procedure when he failed to put the Board of Examiners, the Board of Legal Education, General Legal Council and even to involve the internal and external examiners in the script before and after remarking Otchere Darko's script."


The court said:" General Portfolio, Mr Frimpong and Omaboe have proved that Otchere Darko failed two papers, but passed one of them, the family law paper because the Plaintiff breached the remarking process." It observed that there was no evidence that Mr Otchere Darko breached the remarking procedure, "there is no evidence the remarking by Professor Kludze was biased in his favour".


The Court admitted that matters of Ghana Law School are matters of public interest because it was the only institution which for years had been training legal persons for all sectors of governance. The Court indicated that it was the duty of Mr Ansah-Asare to establish malice or improper motive of the defendants since the publication was on a privileged occasion.

"The only evidence which appeared as he put forward as support for his malice is that the defendants put the publication also on the Internet." The Court noted that current methods adopted by the press to inform the public had achieved far and wide coverage explaining that republication by radio news should not be stifled.


"I have looked at the evidence of the Plaintiff and that of Multimedia and Despite Company, and I must say that, I found no actual malice behind their republication neither did I find malice in their publication," the Court said.


The Court however cautioned the media to be reasonable and responsible as not to unduly sacrifice the hard won reputation of public servants and private persons.