Words have never moved faster, and neither has the law. The recent $18 million defamation ruling against Kennedy Agyapong in the U.S. isn’t just a high-profile legal battle, it’s a stark reminder that free speech has limits, and those limits don’t stop at national borders.
For many Ghanaians, the central question remains: How did a defamation case between two Ghanaian citizens end up in a U.S. court? The answer lies in jurisdiction and the principle that where reputational harm occurs is just as important as where the words were spoken.
In an exclusive interview with The High Street Journal, William Daniel Nartey, Esq., founder of NarteyLaw and licensed to practice in both Ghana and the U.S. state of Georgia, provided key legal insights into the case.
How Could Anas Sue in the U.S.?
According to Nartey, for a U.S. court to hear a defamation case, it must have legal grounds, known as jurisdiction, over the defendant. In this instance, Anas was able to bring the lawsuit against Agyapong because of the nature of the statements and their impact beyond Ghana.
“This case highlights the fact that Ghanaian citizens can be held accountable for defamation in foreign jurisdictions if their statements cause reputational harm there,” he explained. “It sets a precedent that individuals engaged in global discourse, especially via media, can face legal consequences beyond Ghana.”
He further noted that even if Agyapong made the statements in Ghana, they reached a U.S. audience through social media platforms, which are often hosted on U.S.-based servers. If Anas suffered reputational harm in the U.S., such as losing business opportunities or partnerships, he had legal grounds to sue there.
Another key factor, in his view, was the difference in defamation laws between Ghana and the U.S. He pointed out that Ghanaian defamation laws tend to provide stronger protections for reputations, whereas U.S. law carefully balances free speech with the need to protect individuals from harmful falsehoods.
“In the U.S., since Anas is a public figure, he had to prove not just that Agyapong’s statements were false but that they were made with actual malice, meaning Agyapong either knew they were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth,” he stated.
Can Anas Collect the $18 Million?
Winning a defamation lawsuit is one thing, but enforcing the judgment is another. Nartey emphasized that since Ghana does not have a reciprocal enforcement treaty with the U.S., Anas cannot simply register the ruling in Ghana and expect enforcement.
“Enforcing a U.S. defamation judgment in Ghana is usually challenging primarily because there is no reciprocal enforcement treaty between Ghana and the U.S.,” he noted. “Ghanaian courts generally do not automatically recognize foreign judgments unless they comply with local enforcement laws—essentially, unless they have been ‘domesticated.’”
He explained that to domesticate the judgment in Ghana, Anas would need to prove that the ruling adhered to due process, satisfied jurisdictional requirements, and did not contradict Ghana’s public policy. If the court finds any of these elements lacking, enforcement may be denied.
However, he pointed out that Anas has alternative legal avenues. “Depending on how his assets are set up in the U.S., Anas could seek legal action to claim his award directly from those assets,” he stated. This could involve garnishing bank accounts, placing liens on property, or pursuing other asset-seizure mechanisms.
What Are Agyapong’s Legal Options?
According to Nartey, Agyapong isn’t without legal recourse. Once the judgment is formally entered into the court record, he has a brief statutory period, typically 45 days, to appeal the ruling, likely to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
He also noted that Agyapong could attempt to negotiate a settlement with Anas and his legal team to lower the financial burden. “Prior to the entry of judgment, he may also file a motion seeking to have the quantum of the judgment reduced,” Nartey explained. The court may agree to a reduction if Agyapong’s lawyers can successfully argue that the damages awarded were excessive in relation to the harm caused.
A Case That Redefines Speech and Consequences
This case underscores a crucial legal reality: in a world where social media transcends borders, so do legal liabilities. As Nartey observed, “Statements made in Ghana, whether through television, radio, or online platforms, can lead to lawsuits in foreign jurisdictions if they cause harm beyond national boundaries.”
As public discourse increasingly moves online, the intersection between defamation law, digital media, and international legal frameworks will continue to evolve. Free speech remains a fundamental right, but as this case proves, words have a price—and sometimes, that price is $18 million.
Case Background
The defamation suit stems from statements made during a 2021 online interview on The Daddy Fred Show, a U.S.-based social media program. During the broadcast, Kennedy Agyapong and Frederick Asamoah made several claims about Anas, including allegations linking him to criminal activity and the murder of investigative journalist Ahmed Suale.
Anas argued that these statements were false and severely damaged his reputation, leading to financial and professional harm. The Essex County Superior Court in New Jersey ruled in his favor, awarding him $18 million in damages.
Meanwhile, in Ghana, a separate defamation lawsuit Anas filed against Agyapong was dismissed by the Accra High Court in March 2023. Justice Eric Baah ruled that Agyapong’s statements did not amount to defamation, instead concluding that Anas’s journalistic practices were questionable.
The contrast between the U.S. ruling and the Ghanaian court’s dismissal highlights the significant differences in defamation law between the two countries, raising important legal questions about cross-border speech, media accountability, and reputation protection in the digital age.
