Law School Boss Drags Herald Editor To Court

Posted on: www.dailyguideghana.com

By William Yaw Owusu

Accra, Thursday November 1, 2012.

The immediate past Director of the Ghana School of Law, George Agyemang Sarpong has filed a suit against the publisher of a pro-National Democratic Congress (NDC) newspaper, the editor and assigns for libel.

According the retired military officer who is also a lawyer, Prime Mark Company Limited, publisher of The Herald and its Editor Larry-Alans Dogbey together with assigns: Sedi Bansah and Abdul Razak Bawa allegedly published articles deemed to be false and in the process tarnished his hard won reputation.

Also attached to the suit is Bernard Nasara Shaibu of Joy FM and Multimedia Group Limited operators of the radio station.

According to the plaintiff, the article complained about was contained in the Monday 29^th October – Tuesday 30^th October, 2012 Edition of ‘The Herald’, No. 97/12 with the caption: “Rot at Ghana Law School, Director, Records Officer and Accountant Fingered in Examination Scandal”.

The plaintiff says that the article of the 1^st (Prime Mark Company Ltd), 2^nd (Mr. Dogbey), 3^rd (Mr. Bansah) and 4^th (Mr. Bawa) defendants was repeated by the 5^th defendant (Mr. Shaibu) on the 6^th defendant’s (Multimedia Group Ltd) radio station (Joy FM) during the October 30 Super Morning Show.

The reliefs sought by Mr. Sarpong are “General damages including aggravated and/or exemplary damages for defamation for libel.”

He also wants the court to order the defendants to render “an apology for and retraction of the words complained of” and “Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their servants, agents or assigns from repeating similar or other libelous words against the plaintiff.”

In his statement of claim filed on October 30, the plaintiff said among other things that he was a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Ghana and taught for 16 years and a lawyer of over 28 years standing; apart from the consultancy services he renders organizations including the United Nations, FAO and the government of Ghana.

He averred that he is also the founder of the law firm, G. A. Sarpong & Co based in Accra and a member of the Ghana Bar Association among other reputable associations.

The Herald’s article according to the plaintiff accused him among other things of attempting to smuggle his nephew into the recent batch of graduates even though the nephew Kweku Budu Agyemang did not take part in the qualifying exams.

Per the publication, the plaintiff said the he has understood the contents to mean that he engages in nepotism, has abused his office, he is an accomplice and active participant in the perpetuation of fraud at the Ghana Law School, that he is a criminal, that he endorses indiscipline and is whimsical and arbitrary.

“Taken together within the context of the story that was published, that the plaintiff is of low moral integrity and unfit to occupy a public office in Ghana.”

“The plaintiff has contributed his quota in no small measure towards the development of the country. The story suggests that plaintiff superintended and participated actively in acts of fraud and illegality at the Ghana Law School.”

According to the plaintiff “The words complained of are utterly false and were calculated to disparage him.”

The plaintiff further averred that when he noticed that Budu’s name was erroneously added to the list of those preparing to graduate he personally in the presence of a past president of the GBA, the current Ghana Law School Director and a senior lecturer of the school gave firm instructions to Peter Worglo, the Records Officer to delete the name of Budu.

“As event unfolded, the list subsequently placed on the notice board by Peter Worglo still erroneously carried the name of the said Budu; Plaintiff upon sighting this error canceled out the name and thereafter, with the knowledge and consent of the incumbent Director supervised the replacement of the corrected list on the notice board since the plaintiff signed the list in the first instance.”

“In seeking aggravated damages, the plaintiff shall contend that the defendants in publishing or causing to be published the words complained of, were actuated by malice, in that they knew the words complained of were false or had no basis to believe in their truth and had all the opportunity to ascertain the truth and the defendants made the malicious publication, with the view to boosting sales and patronage and thereby increasing their profit.”