Former Ghanaian lawmaker and businessman Kennedy Agyapong has offered to pay investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas $5,000—ten times more than what a U.S. federal court ordered—as a mocking gesture after a surprising reduction in damages.

Mr. Agyapong made the tongue-in-cheek offer in a video circulating on social media on May 12, following a U.S. judge’s decision to slash an $18 million defamation award down to a mere $500.

“Maybe we should give Anas five thousand,” Agyapong is seen joking in the clip, bursting into laughter and clapping his hands, seemingly mocking the symbolic nature of the final court-imposed cost.

The judgment stems from a defamation lawsuit brought by Anas, who accused Agyapong of launching a malicious public campaign against him. A jury had originally sided with Anas, awarding him $18 million in damages. But Agyapong’s legal team filed for a reduction, calling the figure excessive—and the judge agreed, trimming the amount to what many view as a token penalty.

While the ruling upheld the jury’s verdict that Agyapong did defame Anas, the drastically reduced financial award sparked both outrage and satire.

Reacting to the judgment, Anas made it clear that money was never the endgame.
“Our victory is in the judgment and not the award,” he said. “This fight has not been about the money, but rather a fight for truth and justice.”

Anas further pointed out that Agyapong failed to prove any of the serious allegations he made publicly against him.
“I am happy that not a single allegation was proven against me in court when Kennedy Agyapong was given full opportunity to substantiate,” he noted.

Despite the reduced damages, the journalist confirmed plans to appeal the ruling, vowing to push forward in his mission against corruption.
“I will continue in my relentless fight against corruption—and in doing that, continue to name, shame, and jail,” he declared.

The dramatic reversal in court has now become a flashpoint in Ghana’s ongoing debate over press freedom, political accountability, and the cost of public defamation.

Source:TheDotNews