In a dramatic legal turnaround, a U.S. court has drastically reduced a previously awarded $18 million defamation payout to renowned Ghanaian investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas, cutting the sum to just $500. The revised decision, handed down by a judge in New Jersey, follows a challenge by the legal team representing Ghanaian politician and businessman Kennedy Agyapong, who was found liable for defamatory comments made against the journalist.
The case, which has garnered widespread attention across Ghana and internationally, stems from remarks made by Agyapong during a podcast recorded in the United States. In the broadcast, the former Member of Parliament labeled Anas a “criminal” and falsely suggested he had a hand in the 2019 murder of fellow journalist Ahmed Suale. Suale was a close associate of Anas and had worked with him on several high-profile investigations, including undercover exposés into corruption within African football.
Judge Finds Damages “Legally Unsustainable”
Although a U.S. jury in March sided with Anas, finding that Agyapong’s accusations were defamatory and injurious to the journalist’s reputation, the presiding judge ruled that the original $18 million awarded was “excessive” and lacked a sound legal basis.
In her ruling, the judge described the amount as “legally unsustainable under U.S. law,” asserting that the damages were “not proportionate to the actual harm suffered.” As a result, the award was reduced to a nominal sum of $500 — a symbolic amount that, while acknowledging harm, significantly weakens the financial weight of the original verdict.
Anas to Appeal Reduced Damages
Despite the lowered amount, Anas has vowed to challenge the revised ruling. In a statement released shortly after the decision, the award-winning journalist signaled his intention to file an appeal, emphasizing that the case was about more than money.
“We respect the jury’s initial verdict and believe it reflected the gravity of the harm caused. The reduction is disappointing, but we remain committed to clearing our name through all available legal channels,” Anas said.
Tiger Eye P.I., the investigative media group led by Anas, previously maintained that the lawsuit was not about financial compensation but about defending the integrity of journalism and the right to personal safety and reputation.
“This case was always about justice, not dollars,” a spokesperson for Tiger Eye P.I. stated. “We believe no one should be allowed to spread dangerous lies with impunity, especially those that endanger lives and undermine press freedom.”
Kennedy Agyapong Reacts to Verdict
Kennedy Agyapong, who served as a Member of Parliament in Ghana until early 2025 and ran unsuccessfully for the presidency under the New Patriotic Party (NPP) banner, welcomed the revised judgment. Through his legal representatives, he argued that the initial damages were disproportionate and politically motivated.
Following the judge’s ruling, Agyapong released a brief statement reaffirming his belief in “truth and accountability in public life” and maintaining that his comments were protected under free speech.
“I have always stood for transparency, and I will continue to speak out without fear or favor,” Agyapong said.
A History of Legal Battles
This is not the first time Anas and Agyapong have clashed over defamatory statements. In Ghana, Anas previously attempted to sue Agyapong for similar remarks, including allegations that he manipulated evidence and engaged in unethical conduct during investigations. However, the Ghanaian court dismissed the case in 2022, with the presiding judge controversially branding Anas’s style of journalism as “investigative terrorism.”
The U.S. case proceeded separately due to the location and jurisdiction of the podcast episode in which the statements were made. Agyapong, who was physically in the United States at the time and is reported to own property in New Jersey, was found subject to U.S. defamation laws.
Legal experts say the disparity between the Ghana and U.S. outcomes reflects broader differences in legal standards surrounding freedom of expression and defamation across jurisdictions.
Press Freedom and Personal Risk
Anas Aremeyaw Anas is internationally recognized for his undercover journalism that has exposed corruption at the highest levels, including within the judiciary, sports, and government. Known for concealing his identity with face masks and disguises, Anas has often faced threats to his life.
The killing of his colleague Ahmed Suale in 2019 — after Agyapong publicly revealed his identity on national television and encouraged viewers to attack him — sparked global condemnation. Though Agyapong has denied any involvement in Suale’s death, critics argue that his rhetoric may have emboldened the assailants.
Speaking after the jury ruling in March, Anas had described the initial verdict as “a vindication” not only of his work but of all journalists facing threats for exposing the truth.
“This victory is not just for me but for all brave journalists across Africa who risk everything to hold power to account,” Anas said at the time. “Truth still matters.”
Mixed Reactions from the Public
News of the reduced damages has sparked debate in Ghana and among the international press freedom community. Some observers argue that the decision undercuts the importance of holding powerful figures accountable for defamation, especially when such statements put lives at risk.
“Reducing this case to a mere $500 undermines the seriousness of the threats journalists face daily,” said Angela Mensah, a media rights advocate in Accra. “It sends the wrong message — that reputational harm and incitement against journalists can be trivialized.”
Others, however, see the ruling as a victory for free speech. “Regardless of how offensive Agyapong’s remarks may have been, public figures must also accept criticism — even harsh ones — as part of their trade,” argued Yaw Boakye, a political analyst in Kumasi.
Conclusion
The Anas-Agyapong case has come to represent more than just a personal feud — it’s a litmus test for how democracies respond to challenges facing press freedom, personal safety, and responsible speech. As Anas prepares to appeal the reduced damages, the broader implications of the ruling will continue to reverberate across Ghana and beyond.
