Accra, Ghana — The defense team for former Assin Central MP Ken Agyapong has submitted a formal request to a court, seeking to reduce a substantial $18 million jury award handed down in a defamation suit. The lawyers argue that the amount awarded is disproportionately large and influenced more by emotions than by the evidence presented during the trial.
At the center of the legal battle is a lawsuit brought by investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas, resulting in a jury decision that favored Anas with a substantial damages payout. The jury, which reached its decision in a brief 30-minute deliberation period, faced criticism from Agyapong’s attorneys for being swayed by impassioned pleas rather than factual correctness.
E. Carter Corriston Jr., representing Agyapong with the law firm Breslin and Breslin, P.A., has invoked the legal principle of remittitur, which empowers a judge to lessen a verdict deemed to exceed reasonable compensation linked to the evidence. The motion filed highlights concerns over the jury’s decision-making process, which Agyapong’s team suggests was overly influenced by emotional narratives rather than concrete harms.
The defense’s brief to Judge Jeffrey B. Beacham criticized the plaintiff’s closing arguments, asserting they diverted attention to broader issues such as risks faced by Anas and his family in Ghana, as well as the unrelated murder of journalist Ahmed Hussein-Suale. These points, Corriston argued, were tangential and aimed at inciting the jury’s emotional response rather than focusing on the defamation claim itself.
Despite the strong allegations, Agyapong’s legal team clarified that their challenge does not dispute the jury’s finding of defamation but rather the fairness of the imposed damages which they label as “grossly excessive.” Referencing cases such as Cuevas v. Wentworth Grp. and Orientale v. Jennings, the defense insists on adhering to precedents that mandate awards be strictly anchored in factual evidence, not swayed by sentimental appeals.
The request now awaits a decision by Judge Beacham on whether to adjust the jury’s award or to proceed with the current judgement, potentially leading to further legal entanglements. The outcome remains uncertain as the court deliberates on this significant motion that questions the balance between fair compensation and punitive overreach in defamation cases.
This complex legal matter unfolds against Ghana’s backdrop of rising concerns over press freedom and the safety of journalists, illustrating the intricate intersection of legal advocacy, public interest, and individual rights within the country’s evolving democratic framework.
Disclaimer: This article was automatically generated. The people, facts, circumstances, and narrative may be inaccurate. Concerns regarding the content can be addressed by contacting [email protected] for corrections, retractions, or removal requests.