Reporter who sued MP and won $18m hopeful he will pocket the money
An investigative journalist who won an $18m (£14m) defamation case says that, although he is hopeful he will receive the money, what is more rewarding is the message his victory sends.
"The bigger impact for me is not the money but the fact that young journalists are encouraged [to hold the powerful to account] no matter how big you are [as] a politician", Anas Aremeyaw Anas told the BBC.
The Ghanaian journalist first brought his legal case against Ghanaian MP Kennedy Agyapong in their home country, but he lost.
He then took the case to the US, where Agyapong owns property, and won.
The libel case stems from comments the MP made about the journalist after his investigation in 2018 that exposed football corruption in Ghana and elsewhere.
The court heard that Agyapong, among other accusations made on a podcast, had called the reporter a "criminal" and alleged he was behind the murder of fellow journalist Ahmed Suale.
Anas told the BBC he was still grieving Suale and that, despite the recent arrest of one suspect, he believes there are other culprits still at large.
"From time to time I go to where Ahmed was shot, and I go to have my own quiet time. I go to his grave.
"It encourages me. When Ahmed was alive he asked me one day: 'Boss, I want [to] assure you [that] one day if you should die, I would continue with the good work that you do'. I didn't know it was going to be the reverse because, all along... I was the one who was the target."
Anas has been scathing in his criticism of Ghana's legal system, telling the BBC he believes "many" members of the judiciary "are doing nothing but tilting the scale of justice in favour of the wrong one".
He decided to bring his case against the MP to the US state of New Jersey, where the politician was at the time he was interviewed for the Daddy Fred Show podcast, according to court papers filed by Anas' lawyers.
The journalist's victory earlier this month saw him awarded $18m in damages as the result of a unanimous decision by an eight-member jury in Essex County Superior Court in New Jersey, finding Agyapong liable for defamation.
The figure included $8m in punitive damages.
"I feel very happy, I think that it's a vindication of what I have always preached. This goes a long way to encourage African journalists across the continent there's a need for us to be resilient. There's a need for us to have a stomach to take the heat," Anas told the BBC.
Now that the court has ordered Agyapong to pay damages, the journalist says he is confident the funds will be transferred because his legal team's "due diligence" had assessed the value of property and businesses owned by the MP before bringing the case.
"I cannot be 100% certain, but I know that my legal team has done some work and they have a plan," he adds.
Anas says that, even though his case was won in the US, it should serve as a wake-up call to the rich and powerful that African journalists can and will hold them to account.
"We also have the capacity to stand toe-to-toe with you. Whilst we are patient, whilst we are honest, our day will definitely come."
Additional reporting by Thomas Naadi
Betraying the Game: African officials filmed taking cash
Ghana dissolves football association after BBC investigation into corruption
Players union welcomes life ban for Gabon football coach over sexual abuse
Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.
Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Africa Daily
Focus on Africa
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wagner Group announces withdrawal from Mali
The Wagner mercenary group announced on June 6 that it was withdrawing its presence from Mali, ending its fight with rebel groups. "Mission accomplished. Private Military Company Wagner returns home," the group, founded by the late Yevgeny Prigozhin, announced on social media. Wagner mercenaries have been fighting alongside Malian government forces since 2021, in attempts to fend off Islamic insurgents. The group said that it was ending its presence as "all regional capitals have returned to the control of the legitimate government," providing little rationale for the group's exit from the war-torn nation. Wagner mercenaries and Malian soldiers have reportedly suffered heavy losses in their engagements with Tuareg-led rebels. The Russian mercenary group, known for its deployment in Ukraine and short-lived rebellion against the Kremlin in 2023, has a strong presence across the African continent, backing Russian business interests and Moscow-friendly regimes. The mercenaries have been particularly active in Mali since late 2021 and has been of perpetrating war crimes and widespread looting. In December 2024, Human Rights Watch accused Wagner mercenaries and Malian government forces of deliberately killing 32 civilians. The so-called "Africa Corps," under the command of Russia's Defense Ministry, who fought alongside Wagner mercenaries, will continue to have an active presence in Mali. Mali broke diplomatic ties with Ukraine over its alleged support of Tuareg-led rebels without providing any evidence of direct cooperation. The step was taken after comments by Andrii Yusov, Ukraine's military intelligence (HUR) spokesperson, about the rebels receiving "useful information, and not just that, which allowed them to carry out a successful military operation against Russian war criminals." Ukraine's Foreign Ministry later denied the country's involved with rebel groups. Read also: Ukraine war latest: Russia hits Ukraine with large-scale attack days after Operation Spiderweb; Ukraine targets Russian air bases in 'preemptive strike' We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Wall Street Journal
5 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Anvee Bhutani — Reporting Intern at The Wall Street Journal
Anvee Bhutani is a reporting intern and part of the summer 2025 newsroom intern class at The Wall Street Journal's London bureau. Anvee has reported across four continents, from the aftermath of the Moroccan earthquake and Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon to the U.S.-Mexico border and the Muslim minority in India. At the University of Oxford, her investigation into sexual misconduct by professors who remained in their posts sparked national media coverage and led to university policy reforms. Most recently, she has been a contributing reporter with the New York Times, covering the government crackdown on higher education. Anvee previously worked with the BBC, the Telegraph and Channel 4. She also has interned at CNN and MSNBC, where she was part of the Emmy-nominated 2024 election night coverage. Her bylines have appeared in the Guardian, Teen Vogue and more. A graduate of Columbia Journalism School with honors and the University of Oxford, Anvee was editor in chief of her university paper and served as student body president. She speaks Hindi and Spanish fluently, with working knowledge of French and Arabic.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
