Publishers of The Herald have
described a suit brought against them by the Okyenhene, Osagyefuo
Amoatia Ofori Panin, as a blatant harassment for doing their legally
stipulated duty as journalists.
They denied in their statement of defence that they defamed the Okyenhene.
Osagyefuo Ofori Panin has filed a libel suit at the Fast Track High Court against Prime Mark Company Limited,
publisher of The Herald, Mr Larry-Alans Dogbe, Editor of the paper, and
two others for variously publishing alleged libellous materials which,
according to him, had tarnished his hard-won reputation both locally and
internationally.
The two other defendants are Nana Kwame
Adjei-Boateng, a member of the Asona royal family of Kyebi, and Kofi
Nyame, a reporter with the newspaper.
Osagyefuo Ofori Panin is
accordingly praying the court to perpetually restrain the defendants
from further publishing libellous materials against him.
The said libellous material was published on the front page of the May 5, 2014 edition of the paper.
According
to the Okyenhene, it sought to create the impression that he was
championing illegal mining activities, popularly known as galamsey, at
Kyebi.
He wants the court to award exemplary damages in the sum
of GH¢5 million against the defendants, as well as order them to bear
the cost of solicitor’s fees.
The first defendant in the suit is Nana Adjei-Boateng.
Defence
A
statement of defence filed on behalf of Mr Dogbey and Prime Mark
Company Limited, by their lawyer Mr David Annan, argued that claims that
only The Herald circulated the story was false because all radio
stations in the country circulated it.
According to the statement, the story emanated from Nana Adjei-Boateng, a royal from the plaintiff’s family.
The
defendants argued that “various receipts emanating from the Office of
the Okyenhene and given to persons carrying out mining activities
exist”.
Ordinary meanings
They challenged the Okyenhene to
prove how the publication had lowered his reputation in the estimation
of right thinking members of the society or how the publication exposed
him to public ridicule, odium and contempt.
Responding to the
plaintiff’s claim that the story was accentuated by malice, the
defendants argued that the claim was “hollow, untenable and speculative
at best and constitutes a vain and futile attempt to justify the claim.”
No cause of action
The
statement further held that the plaintiff’s writ and claim were
extravagant, tenuous and misconceived because they disclosed no cause of
action against the defendants, who it said were only performing their
duty to inform and convey the sentiments and comments of individuals and
organisations to other members of the public.
According to the defendants, they are constitutionally mandated to publish interviews and press releases.
No comments:
Post a Comment