Archer Drags Daily Guide To Court

The Editor-In-Chief of The Enquirer newspaper, Mr. Raymond Archer, has dragged the Editor of the Daily Guide newspaper, together with its publishers and a columnist, Mr. Eric Bawa, to court for defamation.

The action by Mr. Archer is as a result of an article titled “Raymond Archer’s Peacock Journalism” published in the Wednesday November 18, 2009 edition of the paper.

The Plaintiff is claiming general damages, including aggravated and exemplary damages for libel contained in the said publication.

The Daily Guide is published by Western Publications, set up by former Speaker of Parliament, Mr. Freddy Blay, whose wife, Gina Blay, until recently had her name on the imprint of the paper as ‘Managing Editor’, and has Fortune Alimi as editor.

Apart from seeking damages, Archer is seeking also an order of the court, restraining the Defendants, whether by themselves or agents and or employees or others from publishing similar or other libelous statements or stories on or about him.

Mr. Archer is additionally seeking from the court, the award of costs against the Defendants and any other reliefs the court may deem fit.

In a Writ filed by Mr. Tony Lithur of Lithur, Brew and Company, the Plaintiff said that the Defendants, in the Wednesday November 18, 2009 edition of the Daily Guide newspaper, published or caused to be published a defamatory article written by the first Defendant at the column they referred to as “Time With Angel Gabriel,” titled “Raymond Archer’s Peacock Journalism.”

According to the Plaintiff, an internationally acclaimed journalist, who won both the Global Gold Award Medal and the 2002 version of the prestigious African Prize of Lorenzo Natali Prize for Excellence in Journalism, in the said publication, Eric Bawa, the first Defendant, set out to ridicule and insult him regarding an article in the November 6 to 8, 2009 edition of The Enquirer.

The said Enquirer story was about the disappearance of peacocks, which had been housed at the seat of Government for years, and linked their disappearance to the former Vice President of Ghana, His Excellency Aliu Mahama, and the daughter of the former President, His Excellency John Agyekum Kufour.

The Plaintiff avers that the first Defendant set the tone for the article in the following words defamatory of him:

“Under normal circumstances, I, your Earth Angel Gabriel would not have taken on a colleague in the inky fraternity. I prefer to mind my own business, instead of wasting my precious time dealing with wayward and blackmailers. Yes I would instead have considered the attempts by Raymond Archer to besmear the reputations of man of honour in this country as a mere irritation of nuisance value and let sleeping dogs lie. I have decided to step from my track and show this particular journalist that his tricks will not work here in Ghana, where we in the inky fraternity have been able to wean ourselves from the revolutionary days of stultifying authoritarian dispensation.”

According to the Plaintiff, the first Defendant, whom he does not know anywhere and has never met before, made more direct defamatory statements about him, with reference to the story in The Enquirer about the peacocks, in the following words:

“Come again Raymond, if this is not mischievous, I don’t think I will have any other word to describe your story. This is simply yellow journalism and you have stooped so low for the love of money. No wonder you have joined the club of nouveau rich in this country riding flashy cars and having a taste of good things in life. As to how long you can continue to succeed in your blackmailing is a subject of public interest. The rumour doing rounds says that you are being financed by She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed and the Queen of Nsawam (Cannery).”

The Plaintiff avers that the first Defendant had earlier in the article directly accused him by writing that:

“Raymond Archer has been letting loose his mischievous self-vitiating the niceties of journalistic etiquette. It has now become crystal clear that the man is being paid to do dirty work. It started with Alhaji Muctar Bamba , the former Minister during the presidency of Mr. Kufour. Then he focused his lens on Dr. Richard Anane and tried frantically to smear the gentleman with dirt, but he woefully failed in his mischievous agenda”.

According to the Plaintiff, Bawa, to emphasize the point in the quote in the above, wrote “If Raymond thinks that by insulting the former Veep he is satisfying his employers, I am sorry he has hit a rock”.

The Plaintiff said the words of the first Defendant meant and were understood to mean that he is unscrupulous and unethical journalist, regularly receiving or taking money from third parties, including Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings, in order to do their dirty work for them, through publishing damaging stories and untruths about other persons. In specific reference to Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings, the particulars of innuendo are her direct connection with the Nsawam Cannery which is common and public knowledge, and the fact that she is reputed to be of a very strong character.

The Plaintiff avers the words of the first Defendant meant and were also understood to mean that he had received inappropriate monetary or other reward or inducement to do the story on the peacocks and former Vice President, His Excellency, Alhaji Aliu Mahama and the daughter of former President John Agyekum Kufuor.

According to the Plaintiff, the first Defendant’s words meant and were understood to mean that he is badly behaved, unethical and unprofessional, and that his sole motivation for his journalism practice was his inordinate fondness of money and that he uses his profession as a journalist to blackmail people or extort money from them.

The Plaintiff avers that he shall contend that the Defendants maliciously published or caused the words complained of to be published with the view to attacking his personality and undermine his reputation, professional work and integrity as well as his standing.

The Plaintiff said that his reputation, integrity and dignity have been seriously damaged by the publication and has suffered considerable distress and embarrassment, having had to spend time in explaining his position to, and answering to numerous telephone calls from friends and associates, both locally and internationally.

Mr. Archer contends, in seeking exemplary damages, that the defendants published the words complained of, knowing them to be false or reckless as to their truth or falsity, having calculated that the benefits to them would far outweigh any compensation that may be payable to him for defaming him.