Court throws out Ken Agyapong's application against Anas
Graphic Online2 minutes read
The High Court in Accra on Thursday declined an application by Mr Kennedy Agyapong seeking to dismiss the Gh¢25 million defamation suit against him by investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas.
The court also held that the writ filed by Anas does not in any way violate the constitutional rights of Mr Agyapong as no relevant legal points have been raised to substantiate that claim.
Mr Agyapong claimed that the wearing of a mask and the concealment of Anas's identity breached his constitutional rights under article 33 of the Constitution.
Advertisement
Mr Agyapong had prayed the court to strike out the defamation suit Anas has filed against him.
In a motion filed on July 17, 2018Mr Agyapong prayed the court to strike out the writ of summons and statement of claim by Anas and consequently the entire suit because, according to him, the lawful attorney Anas has appointed to represent him, in the person of Listowel Yesu Bukarson is "irregular, woefully incompetent and indeed vexatious."
Anas has dragged Mr Agyapong to court for defaming him and asking the High Court to award aggravated damages to the tune of GH¢25 million arising from defamatory materials he said Mr Agyapong, who is also a Member of Parliament for Assin Central in the Central Region published.
The MP had published materials in his bid to discredit the investigative journalist, who has released a piece on the rot in Ghana football.
At Thursday's sitting, the court directed Anas to furnish Mr Agyapong with a more detailed address in 10 days as the current address provided is not sufficient.
Advertisement
The Court noted that Anas uses North Labone Crescent while Kweku Baako, who also lives there, describes it as North Labone Estates in a writ he filed in the Supreme Court.
The Court further directed Mr Agyapong to file his statement of defence within 14 days.
Mr Agyapong had filed an application seeking to dismiss Anas’ law suit on the bases that the writ was incompetent, that it did not disclose Anas' address, that even the address provided by Anas was not his address and he did not live there and finally that the writ breached his constitutional right as a person.
