BENJAMIN KWASI DUFFOUR v. BANK OF GHANA & GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION GROUP LTD

ACKAH-YENSU, JA

This appeal concerns the dichotic relationship between two fundamental rights: freedom of expression and protection of reputation. It raises issues as to the meaning of the word “defamatory” and the nature of an action for defamation.

The facts can be stated quite concisely. The Plaintiff/Respondent, Benjamin Kwasi Duffour, (to be referred to hereafter simply as the “Respondent”), was an employee of the Bank of Ghana (1st Defendant in the suit at the trial court), and also at all material times, the Chairman of the Senior Staff Association of the Bank. The 2nd Defendant/Appellant, Graphic Communication Group Ltd, (also to be referred to simply as the “Appellant”), are the publishers and owners of one of the leading daily newspapers, the “Daily Graphic”.

In the issue of the Daily Graphic of Monday June 30, 2008, there was a headline on the front page, to wit “Bank of Ghana dismisses two trade union leaders”. The main story was published on page 24 of the newspaper, and it stated inter alia, that:

“According to reliable sources at the bank, the Chairman, Mr. Benjamin Duffour, and the Secretary, Mr. Frank Mensah, were handed their dismissal letters last Friday and their identity cards, which allow them entry into the bank’s premises taken from them.

One source said the bank’s security head was given a copy of the dismissal letters and instructed to retrieve the identity cards from the two (2) workers”.

On March 4, 2011, the Respondent caused a writ of summons to issue against the Defendants jointly and severally claiming, inter alia, Twenty Million Ghana Cedis (GH¢20,000,000.00) in general damages for defamation. Respondent’s case was that, his personal reputation and professional integrity had been seriously damaged and continued to be irreparably damaged by the said disparaging and damaging publication. He particularized the damage as follows:

“a) The said publication has brought plaintiff into public scandal, odium, ridicule and contempt among his colleagues, certain individuals and the general public.

b) The plaintiff’s employment prospect has been seriously dimmed and damaged.

c) The publication has discredited plaintiff’s profession and trade.

d) The publication has caused or has propensity to cause other persons and the public to avoid plaintiff.

e. The publication has lowered and continued to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally”.

The Appellant herein admitted publishing the a