The High Court in Kumasi has dismissed a defamation suit filed by the Chief Executive of Alpha Radio in Kumasi, Mohammed Ridwan Dankoya against Yussif Abdul Ganiyu, a staff of Zuria FM in Kumasi.
In a judgment dated January 23, 2025, the court, presided over by Justice Frederick Tetteh, dismissed the suit and stated that Dankoya failed to adduce evidence to prove his case.
Having regard to the totality of the evidence on record, coupled with the failure of the plaintiff to adduce corroborative evidence in support of the publication of the alleged defamatory comments, by way of calling a material witness or witnesses to attest to the fact that, that witness or witnesses indeed heard the alleged defamatory comments made by the 1st Defendant , and on the 2nd Defendant radio station, this court is unable to accept the evidence of plaintiff, since his evidence in my considered view failed to establish one key requirement for the grant of damages among others in a defamation suit.
The court said the plaintiff’s claims as spelt out on the writ of summons and statement of claim lacked merits.
The plaintiff was slapped with a cost of GH¢10,000.
Background
Dankoya filed his case at the court claiming to have an unblemished reputation and has held various prestigious roles, including Imam and personal interpreter for the late Colonel Muamar Gaddafi.
He stated that in 2008, he received radio transmitters intended for Islamic broadcasting, which he used without issue until establishing Alpha Radio, creating competition for the only other Islamic station in the area.
He alleged that the defendants launched a campaign to damage his reputation and went on to accused him of stealing a radio station intended for the Zongo community, among other defamatory remarks published on the defendants' platform.
The Plaintiff stated that these statements were intentionally false and had caused irreparable harm to his reputation.
As part of his reliefs, Dankoya was seeking a declaration that the statement was defamatory, an order to prevent the Defendants from further publishing the defamatory statement in any form.
He also wanted the court to order the defendants to retract the statement and issue a public apology in the same media outlet and in three major newspapers, damages for defamation, including aggravated, compensatory, and exemplary damages and legal costs.
Response
In response, the defendants denied the allegations, asserting they were unaware of the plaintiff's affiliations prior to his lawsuit and that their programme had never targeted him for defamation.
They argued that the comments cited by Dankoya did not pertain to him and maintain that his claims were frivolous.
The defendants stated they had themselves been victims of unfounded complaints made by the Dankoya.
