Radio broadcast alleging corruption: defamation, verification and remedies
During a live morning show on Osu FM, host Kofi Mensah says: 'Nana Kojo, the procurement officer at the Ministry of Roads, awarded a GH¢2 million contract to his wife's company and pocketed GH¢200,000.' The station had received an anonymous WhatsApp message from a listener. No one called Nana Kojo before broadcast. The words are heard by an estimated 50,000 listeners and are posted on the station's Facebook page. Nana Kojo's colleagues and his church congregation discuss it; his daughter is taunted at school. The station pleads fair comment and qualified privilege, saying it was a matter of public interest and that it honestly believed the WhatsApp message. Nana Kojo sues for defamation. He has not been charged with any offence. The station later publishes a one-line retraction on its website.
1. Establish the elements of Nana Kojo's defamation claim, including the libel/slander distinction and whether special damage must be proved.
Read the worked answer
The defamatory statement and publication
A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, or to expose him to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or to disparage him in his office, trade or profession. The broadcast says Nana Kojo awarded a contract to his wife's company and 'pocketed' GH¢200,000. That imputes corruption and criminal conduct. It is defamatory.
The statement referred to Nana Kojo by name and office, so identification is satisfied. It was published to about 50,000 listeners and to Facebook users. Spoken words are slander, but an imputation of crime or professional misconduct is actionable per se, without proof of special damage. The Facebook post is libel, actionable without proof of damage. The claimant does not need to show that listeners believed it; the test is the meaning an ordinary reasonable listener would take. The prima facie case is strong.
2. Assess the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege on these facts.
Read the worked answer
Defences
Justification requires the station to prove the substantial truth of the sting: that Nana Kojo corruptly awarded the contract and took GH¢200,000. An anonymous WhatsApp message is not proof, and no documents or witnesses are mentioned. The defence is likely to fail.
Fair comment requires an opinion on a matter of public interest based on true facts. The allegation of pocketing money is an allegation of fact, not comment. Even if it were comment, the underlying facts are unproven.
Qualified privilege may protect a media report made in the public interest, but it is defeated by malice or reckless indifference to the truth. The station broadcast a serious allegation without calling Nana Kojo, without verifying the source, and without checking the contract. That is strong evidence of reckless disregard. A Reynolds-style responsible journalism defence would also fail on those facts. The late one-line retraction does not create a defence; it goes only to damages.
3. What damages and other remedies should the court consider, and how should the retraction affect the award?
Read the worked answer
Remedies
Damages in defamation compensate for injury to reputation, injured feelings and distress. The law presumes damage for libel and for slander actionable per se. The broad broadcast, the Facebook repetition and the taunting of his daughter support a substantial general award. Aggravated damages may be added because the station persisted with a weak defence and published only a minimal retraction. Special damages, such as loss of a promotion or income, must be specifically pleaded and proved.
An injunction may be granted to restrain further publication of the same allegation, but the court is reluctant to restrain speech unless the claim is clear. A mandatory order to publish an adequate apology is possible. The station's retraction and any apology can mitigate damages, but a one-line website note is unlikely to carry much weight. The court should also consider the claimant's reputation and the gravity of the allegation.