(MFWA/IFEX) – On 9 February 2007, an Accra High Court ordered Militant Publications, publishers of “The Insight”, a tri-weekly independent newspaper, and its acting editor, Peter Kojo Apisawu, to pay a fine of 120 million cedis (approx. US$13,043) for defaming Ghana’s minister for water resources, works and housing, Hackman Owusu-Agyemang. The court, presided over by […]
(MFWA/IFEX) – On 9 February 2007, an Accra High Court ordered Militant Publications, publishers of “The Insight”, a tri-weekly independent newspaper, and its acting editor, Peter Kojo Apisawu, to pay a fine of 120 million cedis (approx. US$13,043) for defaming Ghana’s minister for water resources, works and housing, Hackman Owusu-Agyemang.
The court, presided over by Justice Yaw Appau, ordered that 100 million cedis (approx. US$10,870) be paid to the minister and 20 million cedis (approx. US$ 2, 174) as costs to the court.
Justice Appau, an Appeals Court judge sitting as an additional High Court judge, also restrained the “The Insight” from publishing any libellous material about Owusu-Agyemang and ordered the newspaper to jointly publish on two occasions a retraction on the manner in which the defamatory story was carried.
Owusu-Agyemang brought defamation charges against the newspaper three years prior, following an article published in the 6-7 October 2004 edition of the newspaper to the effect that the minister (then minister for the interior) had threatened a car company, PHC Motors, by telling it that the government would not award it any future contracts because the company refused to sign a dubious contract.
Owusu-Agyemang claimed that the newspaper deliberately published a falsehood to portray him as a person of questionable character, corrupt and dishonest, who seemed to use his position to exploit others for personal gains. He therefore asked the court for two billion cedis (approx. US$220,000) in damages.
In March 2005, “The Insight” filed their defence, stating that the publication was not defamatory but constituted fair comment. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was a public office holder and, as social commentators, they were obliged to comment on his action because he had not adhered to established procurement processes.
The court noted that the defendants could not produce any witness but tendered their newspapers to support their claim.
It said the plaintiff never entered into any dubious contract, saying that the company only submitted an invoice.
