A tale of two courts: How Ghana and America ruled differently on the same defamation case -

By Nsiaba Nana Akwasi Kobi

*Feature Article*

19 MAR 2025

The defamation battle between investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas and former Assin Central MP Kennedy Agyapong has once again exposed the troubling inconsistencies in judicial rulings across different jurisdictions. While a Ghanaian court dismissed Anas’s case, citing a lack of evidence, a U.S. court found Agyapong’s remarks defamatory and awarded Anas a staggering $18 million in damages.
This stark contrast raises a critical question: How can the same case, based on the same set of facts, produce two completely different outcomes? More importantly, it forces us to examine whether Ghana’s judicial system truly serves justice or merely protects the powerful.

How the Courts Ruled
In Ghana, Anas sued Agyapong for defamation in 2018 over allegations made against him. The High Court, presided over by Justice Eric Baah, dismissed the case, claiming that Agyapong’s statements were “substantially factual” and justified. Instead of focusing on the damage caused to Anas’s reputation by Agyapong’s allegations—some of which linked him to criminal acts including murder—the court turned its attention to Anas’s methods of investigative journalism, controversially labelling them as “investigative terrorism.”

In a move that shocked many, the court demanded that Anas remove his trademark mask and testify in open court. This was a blatant disregard for the security of an investigative journalist whose work has exposed high-profile corruption and led to deadly consequences—most notably, the assassination of his colleague, Ahmed Suale, in 2019. By prioritizing procedural technicalities over the core substance of the case, the Ghanaian judiciary essentially denied Anas justice and put his life at greater risk.

In contrast, in the United States, Anas’s lawsuit against Agyapong over similar defamatory statements resulted in a decisive victory. The Essex County Superior Court in New Jersey ruled in favour of Anas, awarding him $18 million in damages. Crucially, Anas’s identity was protected in court, allowing him to testify without fear for his safety.

The U.S. court focused on the defamatory nature of Agyapong’s allegations and the harm caused to Anas’s reputation, rather than attempting to discredit Anas’s profession or force him to compromise his security.
Ghanaian Courts and the Protection of the Powerful

This case once again highlights a disturbing pattern within Ghana’s judiciary: the powerful are shielded by technicalities, while the less privileged struggle to find justice. Time and again, judges have used procedural loopholes to protect influential figures, dismissing cases that should have been judged on their merit.

The refusal of the Ghanaian court to examine the substance of Anas’s case but instead place him in greater jeopardy raises serious concerns. It sends a clear message that those who hold power can defame, intimidate, and potentially endanger others without consequence—as long as they have the right connections.

This issue extends beyond Anas. Many ordinary Ghanaians, lacking financial resources and political influence, face a judiciary that appears more interested in maintaining the status quo than upholding true justice. The reality is that in Ghana’s legal system, a case is often not won on merit, but on who you are and who you know.

Time for Judicial Reform
Ghanaians must demand a complete overhaul of the country’s judicial system.

The process of appointing judges to the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court must be critically scrutinized to ensure that those given the power to interpret our laws do so with integrity and independence, rather than in service of the powerful.

We cannot continue to tolerate a legal system where justice is a privilege for a select few. It is time for lawmakers, legal professionals, and civil society groups to push for reforms that will restore public confidence in our judiciary.

Judges who prioritize technicalities over fairness, and who bend the law to favour the influential, must be held accountable.

The Ghanaian courts may have dismissed Anas’s case, but history will remember their decision—not as a triumph of justice, but as another example of how power trumps truth in our legal system.

Meanwhile, the U.S. court ruling stands as a reminder that when justice is blind to power, the truth can still prevail.

Will Ghanaians Rise to the Challenge?

The question now is: Will Ghanaians accept a system where the privileged escape accountability while ordinary citizens suffer, or will we rise to demand true justice? The fight for an independent, fair, and fearless judiciary begins now.