Big blow to Anas: Why Anas can never claim to have won any defamation suit

Bright May 18, 2025

By Prince Adjei – Guy Gee

A New Jersey State Superior Court on Monday, 12/05/2025 delivered a resounding legal victory to Hon. Ken Ohene Agyapong.

The court ordered a paltry $500 damages award after Anas and his team had prematurely circulated in the media space that Anas had received an $18 million judgment.

This was not only disingenuous, but falls in line with the high level of deception Anas has employed over the years to prey on his gullible adherents, because he knew or should have known that the final judgment had not been entered.

The Court’s decision follows a successful motion for molding of the jury award filed by Hon. Agyapong’s legal team, which argued that the jury’s original award of $18million be set aside and the New Jersey Statutory nominal damages of an amount not exceeding $500 be imposed.

Having heard oral arguments on the matter, the Presiding Judge agreed with the position of Hon Agyapong’s advocate, slashing the $18 million in damages drastically to a meagre amount of $500.

The Court’s decision marks a significant victory for Hon. Agyapong and a major setback for Anas and his team, who had initially sought $30 million in damages, claiming irreparable harm to his reputation in the writ.

Following the court’s final judgment, Anas and his Tiger Eye PI team have attempted to spin the outcome as a vindication of his integrity.

Suffice to say, using sophistry and subtle PR tactics, they have sought to mislead the public into believing that Hon. Agyapong actually lost the defamation suit.

For Anas, the judge’s award of $500 in nominal damages was portrayed as a victory. However, he failed to disclose to the Ghanaian public why the judge denied him both actual and punitive damages, an indication that the County Court did not place significant weight or value on his case.

It is therefore not surprising to hear Sampson Laadi Anyinini mount his moral high horse on May 17, 2025 edition of Newsfile and seethed with bitterness and superiority complex ranting and seeking to berate the outcome of judgement.

While Sampson has his right to rant and spew out whatever venom he desires against Hon. Agyapong, it is also quiet disingenuous on his part to try hard to obfuscate the true meaning and interpretation of the judgement delivered by the superior court.

Despite the spirited efforts by Anas and his cabal of media tyrants to play down the import and the true essence of the judgement, discerning minds are compelled to ask the following questions:

1. What is the real essence of the defamation suit?

2. If defamation suit are for restitution, how does the Essex court’s judgement restitute the so called battered image of Anas

3. Why did the US court draw a distinction between, nominal, pressumed, punitive and actual damages?

4. Can Anas and his legal team help us understand the basis on which the court declined them cost in pressumed, punitive and actual damages?

5. Did the court really determine a defamation suit, and if it did why did it refuse to impose punitive damages on Hon. Agyapong?

6. Is the court by its judgement saying Anas had no reputation properly so called to have been damaged?

Answers to these questions will help address the issue of whether Anas really won his defamation suit or not.

For now, we can only conclude that the nominal damage of $500 awarded him was merely compensatory for the choice of language which in the American system requires a different standard of proof to substantiate, but not necessarily because the judge Hon. Agyapong couldn’t proof his claims.

Sampson who is on record to have lost defamation suits against Hon, Ken’s legal team must desist from playing on the emotions of his gullible audiences and check the time…after all majority of Ghanaians are now more than discerning and can read in between the lines.

The days when sophistry helped build heroes out of upstarts and nation wreckers are over and whatever emanate from their camp will be subjected to critical reasoning.

In the same vein, it will do Anas and his hirelings a great deal of good if they expend their energies on answering the above questions and explain to the larger public why his so called international image which was battered by the utterances of Hon Agyapong was not compensated for by the court.