One of the Supreme Court Justices who dissented in a 3-2 ruling against Anas Aremeyaw Anas’ certiorari application against a High Court ruling, had harsh words for the lower court judge, who, among others, accused Anas of engaging in investigative terrorism.
Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi wrote in the recently released full judgement that Justice Eric Baah, who handled the case at the High Court level, exhibited bias against the investigative journalist.
Justice Kulendi, accused Justice Baah of being “actuated by ill will and malice” in his handling of the case, asserting that the judge displayed bias against Anas and his investigative journalism methods.
He criticized Justice Baah for pronouncing Anas as an “outright criminal, extortionist and blackmailer masquerading as a journalist,” words he said, showed a clear prejudice against the journalist.
The defamation case, which stemmed from comments made by Agyapong against Anas, saw Justice Baah dismissing the case in March 2023, describing Anas as a “self-confessed criminal” and justifying Agyapong’s characterization of him as an extortionist.
Displeased with the verdict, Anas pursued two legal avenues for redress. Firstly, he appealed to the Court of Appeal to overturn Justice Baah’s judgment, a decision yet to be determined.
Secondly, he filed an application at the Supreme Court, accusing Justice Baah of bias and requesting the Apex Court to nullify the initial decision.
Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo presided over a panel consisting of Justices Samuel Adibu Asiedu, Prof Henrietta Mensah Bonsu, Issifu Omoro Amadu Tanko, and Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi.
In a decision of 3-2, the panel ruled against Anas, with Chief Justice Torkonoo, Justices Asiedu and Mensah Bonsu forming the majority.
Justice Asiedu, who drafted the majority opinion, maintained that Justice Baah was not biased and had the right to make critical comments against the journalist in his judgment.
However, Justices Tanko and Kulendi dissented.
Justice Kulendi accused Justice Baah of abusing judicial power through his “toxic, caustic, and unsavoury descriptions” of Anas, stressing that such conduct could deter citizens from seeking legal remedies for their challenges.
“The trial judge who appears to have been actuated by ill will, malice, dislike and complete disapproval of Anas’ methods and investigative journalism could not restrain himself from pronouncing a conviction and condemning Anas as an outright criminal, extortionist and blackmailer masquerading as a journalist.
“…the toxic, caustic, and unsavoury descriptions of Anas by the trial judge is a classic example of a violent abuse of judicial power…” he said.
