Kwamena Bartels sues Free Press

Kwamena Bartels, the minister for Private Sector Development, has filed a suit at the High Court in Accra, claiming C400 million as general damages from the publishers of the Free Press, an Accra private newspaper for libel.

Joined in the action are Frank Boahene, acting editor of the paper and Tommark Advertising Services Limited, publishers of the Free Press.

According to Bartels who until October, this year, was the minister for works and housing, the defendants falsely and maliciously caused to be published in the Free Press of Friday, November 15, 2001, words imputing dishonesty, corruption, fraud and lack of credibility on his part.

The said publication was captioned “The Keta sea defence scandal revisited. Where is the C3.2 billion refund from Pentax? Kwamena Bartels’ unnatural silence.”

Mr. Bartels, who is also the MP for Ablekuma North, is also seeking an order that the defendants retract the publication in the newspaper in the same manner and give the same prominence to the retraction as was done in the publication.

In the said publication, the newspaper alleged that Mr. Bartels, who became a hero when he exposed the graft and embezzlement, which had engulfed the Keta Sea Defence Wall Project, had failed to live up to his pre-election promises by maintaining an unnatural silence on a matter he had, prior to his election, publicly criticized.

It was further alleged that the reason why the plaintiff had remained silent was that he was in collusion with Pentax.

In a statement of claim, Hon. Bartels averred that the defendants falsely and maliciously published that he was now “as thick as thieves” with managing director of Pentax, Mr. Owusu-Ansah, (sic) and that Mr. Owusu-Ansah was now a regular visitor to the plaintiff’s residence at McCarthy Hills.

According to the statement, the defendants wanted it to be understood by ordinary people that the plaintiff is a dishonest, corrupt and fraudulent person. It says by the publication, the defendant also intends it to be understood that plaintiff is a criminal, pointing out that the allegations were false, baseless, without merit, and calculated to injure the hard-won reputation of the plaintiff.