Fact-check: Was Anas awarded $18 million or was the case declared a mistrial?

Claims have surfaced online suggesting that the US court case in which investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas sued former Assin Central MP, Kennedy Agyapong, for defamation did not result in an $18 million damages award to the plaintiff (Anas). Instead, the claims suggest the case ended in a mistrial.

Among those making this claim is the Member of Parliament for Tema Central, Charles Forson, who insists that the investigative journalist deceived the public in a statement he released claiming victory. Others include (here, here and here)

“He has never won any case. The court hasn’t ruled. Our media space is full with [sic] misinformation and fake news. It was a mistrial.  I’ve spoken to the man, Kennedy Agyapong, and his lawyers,” the Tema Central MP, who is a member of the New Patriotic Party, claimed.

“The video making the rounds listen to it, once you watch it, at the tail end, you will hear the judge telling them that it is a mistrial. It is a mistrial.”

The verdict has sparked widespread mainstream media spin, with Anas’ supporters celebrating it as a victory for press freedom, while his critics insist, he has taken to the victory lap a little too early after the jury handed him in $18 million in actual and punitive damages.

Fact-check Ghana has looked into the issue and presents the facts below.

A mistrial is a trial that is invalidated before it reaches a verdict due to a significant error, misconduct, or other legal issues. This means the case is not decided, and it may be retried or dismissed.

According to lawyers Fact-Check Ghana spoke with, common reasons for a mistrial include:

• Jury deadlock – When the jury cannot reach a unanimous or required majority decision.
• Procedural errors – If there is a serious mistake in how the trial is conducted.
• Misconduct – If a lawyer, juror, or witness behaves improperly, such as jury tampering or prejudicial statements.
• External influence – If media coverage or outside interference affects the fairness of the trial.
• Prejudice: When bias or unfair influence affects the trial’s impartiality.

The legal dispute stems from Agyapong’s comments following Anas’s 2018 BBC investigation into football corruption in Ghana and Africa titled ‘Betraying the Game’.  According to court documents, during a 2021 interview on the Daddy Fred Show podcast, which targets a Ghanaian audience in the United States, the former Assin Central MP described Anas as a “criminal” and allegedly implicated him in the 2019 murder of a fellow investigative journalist, Ahmed Hussein Suale.

The court documents say Anas felt traumatized and suffered severe emotional distress because he had to respond to the allegations the former MP made against him to friends, family members and other close associates across the world.

To clear his name, Anas filed a lawsuit in New Jersey, where Mr Agyapong is said to own properties.

After the trial, a terse video from the court room shows the judge reading the decision of the jurors.

“‘Judge, in our initial fining, we award $18 million. A breakdown…five million, and punitive eight million.’ With the verdict and your note, your jury service is complete. I thank you so much for your service. You’re discharged, “the judge said in the video.

It appears that Mr Agyapong’s legal team may have previously argued for a mistrial, but the judge dismissed their request.

“The court is denying the quest for mistrial and everyone could file motions at the appropriate time and the court will address everything as the motions are filed appropriately and responded to appropriately,” the judge declared.

He also asked the legal team if they had any questions, but they declined to ask any.

However, speaking on GTV, Mr Forson claimed that the court had declared a mistrial and asserted that “the jury would be constituted and the case recalled in 30 days.”

“How can you award punitive cost to somebody when there is a mistrial? Strangely, [in] our media space, we are being fed with misinformation… It is about time we sit down and analyse things critically,” the Tema Central MP, argued. “You’re saying it is $ 18 million and that they are going to negotiate. Negotiate on what? He is not even going to get $500 from this.”

However, a media law lecturer at the University of Media Arts and Communication (UNIMAC), Zakaria Tanko Musah, said the claim was not correct. He said the jury had delivered its verdict and was discharged.

“The jury’s position is that they found Ken Agyapong liable for defamation and the judge discharged them.  They [Ken Agyapong’s legal team] are raising an issue that the way they[jury] arrived at that decision is problematic.” Mr Musah who is also a private legal practitioner explained. “That is what the judge will be looking at on March 30 and rule. If the judge agrees that there was mistrial, it means that the jury’s decision is invalid.”

He explained that if the jury’s decision is annulled, the case would either undergo a review or a new jury would be empaneled to hear it afresh.

A retired Court of Appeal judge, Isaac Duose, who spoke with Fact-Check Ghana agreed.

“If the jury made any significant error which would lead to a mistrial, the judge would have said it immediately. If for any reason the judge thinks that the decision they have taken did not follow the direction he had given them, by way of finding facts, he would say it immediately. He doesn’t have to wait”

He explained that it was not the court that had declared a mistrial but rather Mr Agyapong’s lawyers who claimed there was a mistrial.

“They have to put in an application and prove that there was a mistrial. The judge himself on the spur of the moment would have declared that there is a mistrial and then discharge the jury,” Justice Duose said.  “If the judge didn’t disagree with the jury at that point, anybody else who says there is a mistrial would have to bring the facts to support the claim.”

Request for remittitur

Meanwhile, Fact-Check Ghana has obtained a document suggesting that Mr Agyapong’s legal team has filed for a remittitur—a plea to the court asking it to reduce the number of damages awarded by the jury.

This gives Anas the option to accept the reduced award or face a new trial.

“In furtherance of my Oral motion made on Thursday, defense requests that the court grant a remittitur in this matter as to the Jury’s verdict in the amount of Eighteen Million Dollars ($18,000,000.00). The amount is clearly excessive and shocks the judicial conscience in light of the proofs presented and the improper statements of the plaintiff’s counsel in summation and the general tenor of his closing and the trial in general,” the court document signed by Mr Agyapong’s lawyer, E. Carter Corriston, Jr., said. 

It further stated that the amount the jury awarded Anas in “in 30 minutes clearly breaches the threshold of “shocking the conscience” even viewing it in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.”

Thus, if the case is a mistrial, Mr Agyapong’s legal team would not have pleaded for the court to reduce the awarded damages (remittitur).

Following from the above, there’s no evidence supporting claims that suggest that the verdict on Anas’ defamation case against Kennedy Agyapong is a mistrial.