The motive behind Manasseh Azure’s failure to present a letter he relied on for his defense in a defamation suit against him and three others was questioned by counsel for Lighthouse Chapel International (LCI), Kweku Paintsil, during cross-examination at the High Court.

The letter forms a key part of the defense of Manasseh Azure, Edwin Appiah, Sulemana Braimah, and the Media Foundation for West Africa, who are in court over their publication of three articles titled “Darkness in a Lighthouse.”

Marcel Aboagye, a witness for LCI, had earlier accused the defendants of deliberately withholding the letter, alleging that large portions of the publications had no connection to it.

In response, Paintsil asked Manasseh why the letter was not submitted to the court, despite its significance to his defense. Manasseh explained that it was an oversight.

Following this, counsel applied to the court to compel Manasseh to produce the letter. The court granted the application, and Manasseh subsequently presented the letter on the next adjourned date.

The defendants are being sued for what LCI describes as defamatory publications against the church. All four defendants have already been found guilty of contempt of court for publishing the articles.

The defendants maintain that they contacted LCI about allegations made by former pastors of the church before publishing their stories. These pastors include Larry Odonkor, Emmanuel Oko Mensah, Edward Laryea, Seth Duncan, Edem Amankwah, and Faith Fiakojo.

During cross-examination, counsel questioned Manasseh about his publication claiming that Seth Duncan, one of the former pastors, had been so mistreated by the church that he attempted suicide three times, including by cutting his scrotum.

Paintsil argued that the specific allegations of suicide attempts and their link to the church were not mentioned in the letter.

The publication further claimed that Seth Duncan sought medical attention at the Bolgatanga Regional Hospital after injuring himself. Manasseh was asked whether, as an investigative journalist, he requested medical reports from Seth Duncan or the hospital to verify these claims.

Manasseh responded that Seth Duncan did not have many documents or receipts due to the passage of time and that he did not request hospital records because, in his experience, medical institutions do not release third-party information.

Counsel pressed Manasseh, asking, “You claim you are an investigative journalist committed to publishing the truth, yet you did not require the storyteller to provide evidence from the hospital before publishing?”

Manasseh replied that he had no reason to doubt Seth Duncan’s account.

Counsel then asked Manasseh whether he personally had a scrotum, to which he responded affirmatively. He was further asked if Seth Duncan specified which part of his scrotum he cut, to which Manasseh said no.

Paintsil asserted that by the time of publication, Manasseh had not verified the specifics of the allegations with Seth Duncan.



Manasseh defended his approach, stating, “Journalists are trained to be sensitive when interviewing or reporting on individuals who have experienced psychological or emotional trauma.”

Paintsil countered, suggesting that Manasseh prioritized the interests of the alleged victim over the reputation of the alleged perpetrator. Manasseh denied this assertion.

The case was adjourned to January 21, 23, 28, and 31, 2025, for the continuation of cross-examination.