{"id":23126,"date":"2021-06-14T13:42:01","date_gmt":"2021-06-14T13:42:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.kumasionlinegh.com\/?p=23126"},"modified":"2021-06-14T13:42:02","modified_gmt":"2021-06-14T13:42:02","slug":"anas-suit-court-to-rule-ken-agyepongs-evidence-in-chief-june-29","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.kumasionlinetv.com\/?p=23126","title":{"rendered":"Anas suit: Court to rule Ken Agyepong\u2019s evidence-in-Chief June 29"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The High Court (General Jurisdiction) in Accra presided over by Justice Eric Baah has fixed June 29, 2021, to rule on the objection raised against portions of the evidence-in-Chief of Member of Parliament for Assin North, Kennedy Agyepong in his case with investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Mr Agyapong, a subject matter of a GHc25m defamation suit from Anas Aremeyaw Anas had his evidence-in-chief filed on March 13, 2019, hit with an objection from Anas\u2019 Lawyers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In court on Monday, June 14, when the case was called after Anas had called two witnesses to close his case, lawyers of Anas raised issues with paragraphs 7 and 8 of Kennedy Agyepong\u2019s evidence, which he was tendering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Basis of objection<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Counsel for Anas holding brief for Kissi Agyabeng, (now Special Prosecutor-nominee) while raising the objection said, \u201cParagraphs 7 and 8 of the witness statement, also objected to some of the exhibits attached his \u201cExh KOA1, KOA3, KOA4.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Paragraph 7: It is my contention that before the premiere of the said documentary by the Plaintiff, I was reliably informed that the Plaintiff had approached the FA President by name, Kwasi Nyantakyi that if he the FA President can pay him an amount of US$150,000 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand United States Dollars) the Plaintiff was going to either stop showing the portion that sought to implicate the FA President or stop premiering the entire documentary,<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Paragraph 8: \u201cHowever, Mr. Kwasi Nyantakyi could not raise the said amount but managed to get US$100,000 which Plaintiff vehemently refused as being insufficient thus went ahead to premiere the documentary.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to counsel, the basis of their objection to the paragraphs above is that the said paragraphs and the mentioned exhibits are hearsay evidence contrary to sections 116 and 117 of the evidence act NRCD323.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He further stated that the witness in the box, has no personal knowledge as required under Sections of the Evidence Act, to speak or to testify to the deposition in those paragraphs and the videos captured as exhibit KOA1, KOA3 and KOA4.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Concerning the video exhibits, counsel said Kennedy Agyepong is not in any way, \u201cconnected to the said videos and therefore he is not competent and clothed with the least knowledge to speak on these matters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe, therefore, prayed the court. In our exhibits C b4 this Court, the witness is captured as saying on July 3, 2018, on Adon TV in twi\u2026..\u201d he admits that he is not the author of KOA1 and that, said the video was manufactured by salis newspaper,\u201d he told the court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He prayed the court that, based on the authorities cited those paragraphs and the exhibits be deleted from the respondent yet-to-be-tendered evidence in chief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unmeritorius objection<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Raphael Agyepong, Counsel for the Respondent (Agyepong) while responding to the objection said, \u201cthe basis of the objection is unmeritorious in law and in fact.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to him, in the plaintiff\u2019s (Anas) witness statement filed on his behalf by Listowel Yesu Bukuson, the said paragraphs 7 and 8 that they are seeking to object to, is captured from pages 11, 12, 13 14 and 15 of their evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Concerning the issue of the video evidence, counsel said, \u201cthe plaintiff is in court seeking damages in GHc25m alleged to have been defamed on the basis of these videos, adding that, \u201cAll plaintiff\u2019s two witnesses who came to testify, came to court to testify on these videos and does not lie in the mouth of counsel to object to that particular evidence he is relying on as the basis of his case\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He argued that \u201cCross-examination is to discredit a witness who may not be speaking to the truth in court, so if they think they have a good case, it would be better to cross-examine the witness for the court to know whether the videos he has brought before this court are hearsay or otherwise.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He prayed the court to overrule the objection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Justice Eric Baah, after listening to the parties said, the nature of the objection requires detail ruling and has adjourned the case to June 29, 2021 to determine the objection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Background<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sometime in 2018, the ace international investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas dragged the Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin Central, Mr Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, to court for defaming him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Anas was asking the High Court to award aggravated damages to the tune of GH\u00a225 million arising from defamatory materials published by the MP.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He said, the MP had been publishing materials in his bid to discredit the investigative journalist, who has released an explosive piece on the rot in Ghana football.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Displeased with the MP\u2019s actions, Anas has, through his lawyer, Mr Kissi Agyebeng, sued Mr Agyapong for the award of general damages for defamation in the defendant\u2019s publications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A journalist, Mr Listowell Yesu Bukarson, has been granted the lawful attorney to stand in for Anas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Publications<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The publication complained of are a May 29, 2018, live program in Twi on Adom TV, where Mr. Agyapong categorically stated that Anas was a blackmailer, corrupt, an extortionist, and evil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the statement of claim, the defendant, in a similar manner, published defamatory words on May 31, 2018, via Oman FM, a private radio station owned by the defendant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The statement of claim also stated that the defendant published more defamatory materials against the plaintiff via other platforms to the extent of releasing pictures purported to be those of the investigative journalist in his bid to blow the latter\u2019s cover.<\/p>\n\n\n\n