General News of Friday, 9 February 2007

Source: GNA

Insight ordered to pay 100m cedis compensation

Accra, Feb. 9, GNA - An Accra Fast Track High Court on Friday ordered the Editor and Publishers of the Insight newspaper to pay 100 million cedis as compensation to Mr Hackman Owusu-Agyemang, Minister for Water Resources, Works and Housing, in a libel suit.

It further awarded 20 million cedis cost against Mr Peter Kojo Apisaw, Acting Editor and Publishers of Insight, namely Militant Publications.

The order followed a publication in the 6-7 October 2004 edition of the newspaper alleging that Mr Owusu-Agyemang, then Minister for the Interior, had warned PHC motor that government would not give future contracts to the company.

Mr Owusu-Agyemang therefore filed a statement of claim claiming two billion cedis damages and an order of perpetual injunction. The court presided over by Mr Justice Yaw Appau, a Court of Appeal Judge, further ordered defendants to jointly and severally publish on two occasions a retraction in the manner in which the said story was carried.

It further restrained defendants from publishing any libellous articles against the plaintiff.

In the statement of claim plaintiff said the defendants knew that the publication was untrue and indeed caused damage to his reputation. According to the plaintiff, the said publication sought to question his character and painted him as a corrupt and dishonest person who seemed to use his position to exploit others for personal gains. Plaintiff stated that he spent a lot to clear his name as the said publication was on the Internet.

Defendants in March 2005 filed their defence stating that the publication was not defamatory but constituted fair comment. According to the defendant, the plaintiff was a public office holder and they being social commentators, were obliged to comment on his action because he did not adhere to procurement processes. The court noted that defendants could not produce any witness but tendered their newspapers to support their claim.

The court noted that the plaintiff never entered into any dubious contract saying that the PHC only brought an invoice and he did not sign for the vehicles.