Analysis of Anas’ $18M damages against Kennedy Agyapong: $5M in presumed damages, $5M in actual damages, and $8M in punitive damages and where the money could come from
In a landmark ruling that has sent ripples through Ghana’s media and political landscape, investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas has been awarded $18 million in damages against Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, a prominent businessman and the former Member of Parliament for Assin Central.
The verdict marks one of the largest defamation awards in recent legal history, raising questions about its enforcement and implications for freedom of expression in Ghana.
The case origins and allegations
The legal battle began when Anas filed suit against Agyapong following a series of statements made by the politician between May 29, 2018, and November 20, 2018, which were later repeated during a September 7, 2021 interview on “The Daddy Fred Show.”
According to court documents, Agyapong made several defamatory claims against the journalist, including calling him a “criminal,” alleging he was “behind the murder of Ahmed Suale,” and claiming Anas was “responsible for the death of multiple Chinese nationals.”
These allegations came in the aftermath of Anas’s explosive documentary “Betraying the Game,” aka “Number 12” which exposed corruption in Ghanaian football. The documentary implicated several high-ranking officials, including members of Agyapong’s New Patriotic Party (NPP).
In response, Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, a Member of Parliament for Assin Central at the time, launched a public campaign against Anas and repeated those claims on the show in the US.
The claims formed the basis of the five counts of defamation in the lawsuit filed in Essex County, New Jersey.
The verdict breakdown
The court’s decision awarded a total of $18 million in damages, meticulously structured as follows:
- $5 million in presumed damages: Recognizing the inherent harm to Anas’s professional reputation
- $5 million in actual damages: Compensating specific losses resulting from Agyapong’s statements
- $8 million in punitive damages: Nearly half the total award, signalling the court’s view of the exceptional gravity of the defamatory statements
This stratified approach to damages reflects the court’s assessment of both the harm suffered by Anas and the need to deter similar defamatory conduct in the future.
Presumed damages acknowledge the inherent harm to Anas’s reputation, while actual damages compensate for specific losses he experienced as a result of Agyapong’s statements.
The substantial punitive element – nearly half of the total award – sends a clear message about the gravity with which the court viewed the defamatory statements, particularly given Agyapong’s position as a public official and his wide reach through various media platforms.
The court determined that Agyapong acted with “actual malice,” given that he had previously been cross-examined in Ghana and had admitted to the falsity of some of his statements, yet continued to make similar allegations in the 2021 interview.
The defendant’s assets in the jurisdiction of the judgment
A document obtained by the 3News highlights extensive property holdings reportedly owned by Kennedy Agyapong within the jurisdiction, potentially making enforcement of the judgment more feasible than initially thought.
According to the property check report obtained by our team, Agyapong owns at least three significant properties in the area, including a residence at 7 Walter Street in West Orange, New Jersey, purchased in 2007 for $980,000. This property currently has an assessed value of $906,200 with a market value of approximately $1,082,676 as of 2020. Records indicate the property was financed with a $730,000 mortgage.
Additional properties include a residence at 92 E Bigelow Street in Newark, acquired in 2005 for $490,000, and a property at 134 S Grove Street in East Orange, purchased in 2005 for $365,000.
These US-based assets provide a tangible avenue for Anas to enforce the judgment. Should Agyapong fail to satisfy the court’s award voluntarily, Anas’s legal team could place liens on these properties or potentially initiate foreclosure proceedings to recover the damages owed.
The property search further revealed that Agyapong claims to own 147 properties in Ghana, primarily in Accra, Tema, and Kumasi, according to statements he made in a television interview with Joy News. While these assets lie outside U.S. jurisdiction, they underscore his substantial wealth.
Kennedy’s overall assumed financial capacity should the case hold
Recent financial profiles place Kennedy Agyapong’s net worth between $120 million and $400 million, according to multiple sources with the politician himself claiming in October 2023 that his net worth exceeds $400 million.
His wealth stems from an extensive business empire that includes real estate, media interests, and various enterprises.
Agyapong’s business portfolio is said to encompass numerous companies including Gold Coin Communication, The National Newspaper, multiple radio stations (Spice FM, Ashh FM, Oman FM), Net 2 TV, the Hollywood Shopping Centre, and several other ventures.
Kennedy Agyapong has openly discussed his property holdings, stating in interviews that “I invest in buildings. Cars are not investments. I have 147 houses, but I don’t live in all of them. I rent them. In real estate, you don’t make that much money, but it makes you comfortable.”
The remittitur question and motion for mistrial
Following the verdict, Agyapong’s legal team has moved to vacate the default judgment and filed a motion for mistrial.
In a video from one of the sessions court session, the judge stated: “The court is denying a request for a mistrial, and everyone can file motions at the appropriate time, and the court will address everything after the motions are filed appropriately and then responded appropriately.”
Agyapong has several potential legal avenues available:
- Remittitur: His legal team may request the court to reduce the damages on grounds that they are excessive or disproportionate.
- Motion for Mistrial: They could argue procedural errors or prejudicial conduct affected the trial’s outcome.
- Jurisdictional Challenge: As evidenced by court filings in April 2023, Agyapong’s attorneys have argued that the case belongs in Ghana, where a similar defamation case between the same parties was recently dismissed.
Legal experts suggest that even if a remittitur (reduction of damages) is partially granted, the significant property holdings within the jurisdiction provide a clear path to enforcing at least a portion of the judgment.
It’s worth noting that in March 2023, a Ghanaian High Court dismissed a similar GH₵25 million defamation suit that Anas had filed against Agyapong.
The court ruled that Anas failed to prove that Agyapong defamed him by airing the documentary “Who watches the watchman.”
The Ghanaian court also held that Agyapong provided sufficient evidence showing that Anas used findings from his work to solicit money from persons implicated in his investigations, with those who paid allegedly being exempted from public exposure.
Implications for enforcement and appeals
The substantial gap between the Ghanaian court’s dismissal of similar claims and the U.S. court’s massive damages award creates a complex international legal scenario.
While Agyapong’s U.S. assets provide a potential avenue for partial enforcement, the cross-jurisdictional nature of the dispute presents significant challenges because collecting the full judgment may require additional legal steps across international boundaries.
For Anas, whose investigative work has often targeted powerful figures, the U.S. judgment represents a significant vindication, even as he faces a contradictory ruling in his home country.
For Agyapong, the case underscores the potential legal exposure that comes with international business and property holdings, especially as he is reported to still be nursing presidential ambitions towards the 2028 elections.
Despite this initial judgment in favour of Anas, the legal battle is far from over and is expected to continue to unfold and will likely establish important precedents for cross-border defamation claims and enforcement of foreign judgments, particularly in cases involving public figures, journalists, and political speech.
Source: 3news.com