Former Inspector-General of Police (IGP), David Asante-Apeatu, has sued Net-2 TV presenter, Justice Kweku Annan for defamation.
The defendant is the host of the station’s popular talk show known as ‘The Seat’.
Kweku Annan is said to have claimed on the June 16, 2021, edition of his show that, the former IGP is a fence for notorious Ghanaian and Nigerian criminals and harbors the criminals.
In addition, he alleged that Mr. Asante-Apeatu is/was on the payroll of top criminals in Ghana, and had refused to cause the arrest and prosecution of these criminals.
Not only that, the TV Presenter accused the former IGP of working in cahoots with hardened international criminals to unleash terror on Ghanaians.
But the plaintiff in his writ avers that the accusations are figments of the defendant’s imagination, ‘utterly false’, hence his lawsuit.
According to the former IGP, the TV presenter mischievously calculated the allegations in a manner that was to damage his reputation and cause him public disaffection.
Plaintiffs support of claim for aggravated damages
The former police chief who sued per his lawful attorney particularly stated as follows:
The defendant published the words complained of knowing they were false, or recklessly as to their truth or falsity – having calculated that the benefit to the defendant in his vocation as a TV presenter – by way of popularity and increased viewership-base and following as a result of the sensational publication-would outweigh any compensation payable to the plaintiff.
That the defendant knew that once he made the publication, it would be reproduced on the websites of the various media platforms including social media, and access to countless numbers of people worldwide.
Also, the defendant knew and intended that his publication of the words complained of should be so published and./or such publication was the natural and probable consequence of his publication.
The defendant transmitted and/or caused the publication to be published on Net2 TV’s YouTube and Facebook accounts which the defendant has left to open access to an unquantifiable number of users globally of the internet on the world wide web.
Consequently, it can be inferred that a large, unquantifiable number of users have watched and are watching the defendant’s publication of the plaintiff and that the defendant was malicious in his publication of the words complained of.
The plaintiff is therefore seeking the following reliefs:
1. General damages for libel contained in the defendant’s publication of the plaintiff.
2. Aggravated damages arising from libel published by the defendant of the plaintiff
3. Costs, including lawyers’ fees.