The former Chief Executive Officer of the Minerals Commission, Dr Tony Aubynn has initiated a civil suit against the host of Good Evening Ghana, Paul Adom-Otchere for defamation.

The Plaintiff who named Adom-Otchere as the 1st Defendant, also added Ignite Media Group (2nd Defendant) to the action filed on Tuesday, November 26, 2024.

Dr Aubynn, who is currently the Abakoma-Akyempimhene of the Damang-Wassa Division of the Wassa's Fiase Division of the Western Region, contends that the remarks uttered by Adom-Otchere, are intended to diminish him in the minds of right thinking members of society.

He is therefore requesting the High Court in Accra to compel Adom-Otchere to offer a “retraction and an unqualified apology” to him “using the same media platforms used in publishing the defamatory statements complained of.”

The Plaintiff is also seeking an “order in the nature of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants and their assigns from making any further publication or “circulated any other similar defamatory words touching and/or otherwise concerning the Plaintiff herein.”

Additionally, the Plaintiffs is “seeking general damages of Thirty Milion Ghana Cedis (GHS 30,000,000.00) against the Defendants for the defamatory statements published against the Plaintiff portraying him as a dishonest, selfish, hypocritical, unpatriotic, corrupt, dishonourable, unscrupulous member of society who has the habit of inciting illegal miners to act in a manner as to destroy the environment.”

These words, the Plaintiff contends that, “in their true and natural sense have exposed the Plaintiff to public ridicule and contempt in the eyes of right-thinking members of society.”

The Plaintiff is also seeking for “Punitive and Exemplary damages of Ten Milion Ghana Cedis (GHS 10,000,000.00) against the Defendants.”

Particulars of malice

In his Statement of Claims, the Plaintiff said, “The Defendants deliberately published the said defamatory statements and

caused same to be widely circulated and distributed, knowing very well that same were false and/or with no honest belief in the truthfulness of the claims, in order to whip up negative public sentiments against the Plaintiff.”

“The Defendants deliberately, maliciously, and/or recklessly published the said impugned publications on the said show without considering the extent to which making such untruths can go to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff.

“The 1st Defendant actually lied confidently and repeatedly that the statements made by the said 'second speaker' were made by the Plaintiff, in order to achieve his objective of defaming the Plaintiff.

“The Defendants with full knowledge of the Plaintiff's contact details and/or

with the means of obtaining same, failed, neglected and/or deliberately refused or failed to contact the Plaintiff directly to clear all or any doubts about whether or not the Plaintiff was in fact the second speaker or made the

statements ascribed to him and to cross-check the claims contained in the impugned publications,” the Plaintiff stated in his statement of claim. 

Exemplary damages

The Plaintiff submitted that he will rely on the following facts and matters in support fo his claims for exemplary damages:

“The Defendants knew or ought to have known that the allegations contained in paragraphs 43 and 59 above and authored by them were false, malicious, and consequently defamatory.

“The Defendants published the said defamatory statements and by that, permitted other persons to republish and/or circulate same in order to achieve their desired maximum impact of defaming the Plaintiff.

“The 1st Defendant, a journalist of many years, and the 2nd  Defendant from their background knew and/or ought to have known that the defamatory publications they put out concerning the Plaintiff could potentially sully

Plaintiff's reputation,” the Plaintiff contended.