Ibrahim Mahama suit: Owusu Bempah appeals GH¢300K damages

The Communications Director of the Ghana Gas Company, Ernest Owusu Bempah has filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal challenging the GH¢300,000 damages slapped on him by an Accra High Court.

The court presided by Justice Georgina Mensah Datsa on 18th October 2019 granted all the reliefs except the cost of GH¢2 million which the Judge awarded GH¢300,000 to Mr Ibrahim Mahama who had sued Owusu Bempah for defamation.

The Chief Executive Officer of Engineers and Planners (E&P), Ibrahim Mahama, last year sued Ernest Owusu Bempah, along with the Despite Group of Companies – owners of private TV station UTV for defamation.

Aside the money, Ernest Owusu Bempah and the Despite Group, were directed to publish a retraction and apology in the Daily Graphic and on the same platform, those defamatory words, which were used against the plaintiff was published.

They have also been directed to remove the said defamatory material about the plaintiff from all archives.

The Judge also warned communicators who go on media platforms to malign innocent people to desist from such acts, because that would not be tolerated.

“Ernest Owusu Bempah by publishing those words directed at the person of Ibrahim Mahama, he has defamed him. I shall proceed to grant judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, Ibrahim Mahama. As we move towards next year’s election, we need to be guided,” Justice Georgina Datsa said.

But lawyer Gary Nimako counsel for Mr Owusu Bempah has filed an appeal contesting the whole judgment dated 18th October 2019.

The grounds of appeal said:

a) The learned trial Judge erred when she held that the words spoken by the 1st Defendant in the heat of passion on a political discourse between the 1st Defendant and the NDC panellist was actionable in a defamation suit.

b)The learned trial Judge erred when she failed to properly evaluate the evidence before the court in totality considering the derogatory statements made by the NDC panellist against the 1st Defendant which led to the statement uttered by the 1st Defendant.

The judgment is against the weight of evidence.