Home Opinion Anas Aremeyaw Anas: The Man, The Myth and the Many Questions

Anas Aremeyaw Anas: The Man, The Myth and the Many Questions

0
Anas Aremeyaw Anas
Anas Aremeyaw Anas

Yesterday, a court ruling ratted Anas and some of us who “knew” him well feel vindicated, while his supporters are shaken but still clinging to the belief that the allegations, now substantiated in court against him, are false.

I must state that I have been critical of Anas for his methods, after witnessing instances of his extortion and land-grabbing when ideally, he should be someone cheated people run to for help.

On top of my reservations about his work, I also have questions about the lack of clarity on the accountability of Anas and his Eye Company, and the apparent blurring of the lines between private and public duties and interest.
Regardless of where you stand on this issue, I urge you to read this with an open mind because, think of it, despite the numerous attacks on Manasseh Azure Awuni for his works, has anyone ever accused him of blackmail or extortion?
Think, why Anas in particular?

Think, does Anas have some golden pubic hairs that by stripping him and plucking it out his critics get guarantee of lifetime wealth?

For example, take the fact that this latest court judgment showed Anas recorded 55 Custom Officers for bribery and corruption but showed only 11 officers in his documentary.

Think, what criteria did Anas use to decide these 11 sets deserve to be “named, shamed and jailed” but these other 44 sets should be hidden, forever? — Oh my apologies to Sir John’s family.

Anytime such legitimate queries are raised, all Anas says is that those who disagree and feel he has done wrong or extorted should go to court.

(See:https://starrfm.com.gh/2022/11/sue-me-if-i-have-extorted-money-from-you-anas-to-critics/)
Thankfully, we are here to discuss a court judgement about extortion and blackmail.
If you have read this far, sit tight; we are going for a bumpy ride down the hill.

Also, if you haven’t yet watched “Who Watches the Watchman,” now is the perfect time to do so and get a Hausa translator nearby.

The video is the main evidence Kennedy Agyapong used against Anas in the court judgement of 15th March, 2023. The case would have gone a different path if Anas had not eventually claimed ownership of the video. It would have been up to Kennedy Agyapong to prove its source, how he obtained it, who are the people in the video, is the person in the video identified as a prosecutor actually a prosecutor etc. etc. By claiming ownership of the original video in court, Anas made Kennedy Agyapong’s case easier!

In my view, the video depicts the case of a medicine man – Anas Aremeyaw Anas — consumed by his own schemes.
Upon reading the verdict, I observed Anas struggling from the outset; vacillating between affirming and denying his presence in the video. If he was not present in the video, why bother (and spend money) to accuse Kennedy Agyapong of defamation by displaying the video and its content in court? Ultimately, Anas admitted that he was, in fact, present in the video, but with an explanation.

Anas acknowledged that he was indeed present. He and his lawyers identified the prosecutor etc. However, he explained that that particular section featuring him with the prosecutor in the gold scam case was merely a “rehearsal” for the trial they were planning.

That’s not all: Anas also accused Kennedy Agyapong of “doctoring and piecing together” the said “Who Watches the Watchman” video with another video in which Anas met with two other suspects. Anas said it was wrong to piece two videos of him together to make a legal case.

Now, in law, the experts say since it was Anas who brought the case to court and Kennedy Agyapong responded with his video defense which Anas now claimed ownership of by saying the original of the video submitted by Kennedy Agyapong is his but that Kennedy’s copy was “doctored and unreliable”, the court expected Anas to bring the real “unedited and reliable footage” as his proof to show that Kennedy Agyapong indeed had an edited and doctored version. Anas failed to do that and the court noted that failure in its judgment.

But imagine ooo, Anas is accusing someone of “doctoring and piecing” together a video! That’s somewhat rich! No?
Pardon me, that’s my bias showing; but trust me, I’ll try to be fair.

The Who Watches the Watchman video in question dates back to 2009 and was allegedly obtained by a former employee of Anas, who was dissatisfied with his pay and treatment. According to sources, Anas pays his staff very little — sources say it was less than NABCO — and this particular employee claimed that despite Anas earning $100,000 in bribe from an investigation, Anas refused to help him pay his child’s medical treatment so among other reasons they fell out. The employee kept a copy of the video as insurance against Anas, and eventually provided it to Kennedy Agyapong in 2018 to use against his former boss. In exchange for the footage, Kennedy Agyapong reportedly helped the employee leave Ghana.

This is just a background. Read on.
After the release of “Who Watches the Watchman,” numerous individuals connected to Anas, including Anas himself, dismissed the video as a fake, a fabrication and attributed it to enemies of his anti-corruption crusade seeking to undermine his efforts.

It is understandable that many people were initially sceptical of the video’s veracity. Given that Anas is often viewed as an anti-corruption icon, it can be challenging even nearly impossible for Ghanaians to accept that their darling “Casanova of Integrity” held in such high regard may have engaged in such deplorable financial indiscretion — what is US$100,000!?

But you see, Anas’ decision to pursue legal action against Kennedy Agyapong provided an opportunity for the video to be scrutinized and validated in a court of law — that was a mistake!

Take for example, there is a video of Anas accosted by landguards in TseAdo when he attempted to take over Madam Victoria’s land there. The old woman employed CPS landguards who fought Anas and videoed him in his disguise cornroll. If for example he challenges me for defaming him and says the video is fake, he only gives me a chance to prove it is not — and through that, he is exposed more!

That’s what happened in Kennedy Agyapong’s case with Anas. Anas should have simply moved on after he said it was fake but he wanted to perhaps prove a case to his international partners that he is still credible hence going to court.

So what does the Who Watches The Watchman video reveal?

[Before that, may the soul of Dema Naa Hafiz rest in peace and may Allah forgive him.]

Hafiz was the first person to admit that Anas took $50,000 each from him and his associate in order not to publish a video about their Gold scam.

To provide some context, Hafiz, Mubarak, and Tunde had swindled a Dubai businessman, out of $1.9 million in a gold deal, and this businessman victim sought out Anas to assist him in recovering his funds and obtaining justice. The total amount of the scam was $5.7 million, and the trio had received $570,000 from US$1.9Million gains.

Obviously, Anas was contacted to help due to his reputation.

That’s where “Who Watches the Watchman” comes in.

I am repeating for Emphasis: When Anas sued for defamation, Kennedy Agyapong tendered that video and other files in his possession from Anas former staff as evidence. Kennedy told the court he spoke the truth and didn’t defame Anas. Truth is a valid defense in defamation.

Now, after back and forth technicalities, the court examined and watched the video with official expert transcription and translation paid for by Kennedy Agyapong from the Ghana Institute of Languages.

The court established that Anas was indeed the one in the video in the course of the case — remember Anas had explained the video was him rehearsing with the prosecutor for trial to jail the three scammers.

In the video, after the businessman hired Anas to investigate the matter and recover the stolen money, Anas went to meet Mubarak and Tunde (minus Hafiz) all captured on video in Accra.

Mubarak and Tunde readily and clearly confessed to their involvement in the scam against the Dubai businessman in the video and mentioned other accomplices. Anas captured the two on video admitting their crime — Mubarak and Tunde.

In the video, TUNDE suggested to Anas and actually paid Anas US$100,000 to manipulate and exclude him from the investigation and the impending criminal court trial.

It was discussed and agreed specifically that Anas made Hafiz in Tamale be implicated in the scam rather than Tunde. Anas reassured them that he would help clear their names if they testified or provided evidence nailing Hafiz. At this point, you may say Anas was acting to elicit evidence.

But Anas received US$100,000 from TUNDE. Follow the plot slowly. Still, let’s maintain Anas was acting to obtain evidence. I am still speaking from official court records.

If you are dazed, relax, start over from my prayer for forgiveness for Hafiz Dema Naa and come down slowly, we are riding downhill. I will be gentle with you.

Now. remember Anas meeting the prosecutor and his explanation? Ok. Good. He said the meeting was a rehearsal for the trial.

That the meeting was a rehearsal was true — but only partly!

In that “rehearsal meeting”, as played in court, Anas met the prosecutor on the case. They talk. He actually showed the video of his encounter with the 2 suspects (Tunde and Mubarak) to the lady prosecutor and tried to explain to the prosecutor what transpired when he met the duo, they talk court arrangements etc.. Had the conversation ended there, Anas would have been clean!

We would have concluded he took the money from Tunde to enjoy for himself – no one can blame him — because that money did not influence him, he still upheld what is right.

But that’s not what happened. We shockingly see Anas start talking about money with the prosecutor.

Anas clearly confessed to the prosecutor that he had been bribed by Tunde with US$100,000 to ensure he is not charged in court for the Gold Scam.

The prosecutor asked Anas of her share of the money to which Anas admitted to sending her US$5,000.

Read their conversation from Court Records:

— Prosecutor: Is it the two of them? [meaning Tunde and Mubarak]

— Anas: No, it was Tunde. He now wanted to fight for himself.

— Prosecutor: Tell me the amount transferred to me.

— Anas: $5,000(five thousand dollars)

— Prosecutor: We all want money, we all need money…

— Anas: Exactly!

— Prosecutor: That’s the reason why I had to know the evidence he had and then we turn it to suit the presentation you have in court.

In that same episode, Anas mentioned that Tunde had paid him US$100,000 Bribe because they were “somehow related”.

Wait for it — Anas also voluntarily told the prosecutor that he had paid a US$75,000 bribe to the then Director General of the CID – COP Adu Poku — all this on video in Who Watches the Watchman.

The court noted that Anas’ “rehearsal meeting with the prosecutor” had now “become a strategy session on how to share Tunde’s bribe and sabotage the then pending criminal case on the gold scam” against Hafiz, Mubarak and Tunde; with Tunde paying to be excluded.

Since Tunde was caught byAnas on tape confessing to the scam paid $100,000, will he be excluded? Read on.

When the case was prepared and presented to court, miraculously missing was Tunde. This is someone Anas had clearly captured on tape confessing to the crime and being the lead!

So why was Tunde left out? If he was left out by the prosecutor by mistake – never mind she took US$5000 — the court expected Anas to prompt the trial or the AG that Tunde who “I have on tape confessing to be the lead scammer has been left out”. He didn’t. Clearly we all know why. But it is the court’s opinion that matters, not ours. What did the court say?

The court said available evidence proves that Tunde was excluded from the charges through the machinations of Anas, after receiving a bribe of $100,000 and perhaps on grounds of their family relationship.

Now, remember Hafiz also claimed that he and the other partner paid US$50,000 Dollars each to Anas not to publicly air his recordings of the Gold Scam he had on them and to ensure the crimin court case became a foolish case? Well.

Indeed, the case was later thrown out but here again, we defer to the opinion of the court — the court ruled that there was no evidence of Anas involvement in the outcome, but there were still concerns regarding Anas’ behaviour particularly given the flow of the bribes.

Indeed Anas gave some videos to the court to prosecute the guys [excluding Tunde!] but the video was rejected by the court.

In his case against Kennedy Agyapong, Anas failed to present to the court the original video that was rejected by the court in the trial against the Gold scammers. If he had submitted it and it included Tunde, we could say well, he took the bribe and still did his job? In his case against Kennedy Agyapong, however, Anas failed to present the original video to prove he tried to expose Tunde; clearly this raised doubts about Anas’ credibility against Kennedy Agyapong.

The court relied on the “Anas principle” and Anas’ own recorded video to nail him.

In other words, Anas fell on his own sword, in missionary position.

Clearly, Anas took bigger bribes while publicly shaming others who took smaller bribes. The court saw him as someone building political influence for his hatchet jobs against chosen targets when he himself was never clean.

Indeed Kennedy Agyapong listed very prime properties owned by Anas, his alleged tax evasion through imports of tablets for his wife, among other allegations which Anas failed to properly address focusing only on some claims he found easier to dismiss. I believe all of those things go into the heart of the credibility of Anas and his capacity to defend himself with the truth if it is truly on his side.

Anas failure to rebut the video Kennedy Agyapong tendered with the original ones he claimed to have also worked against him in the case.

But generally, was the court fair to Anas?

Yes and No, in my view.

Yes, because Anas was clearly caught pants down taking bribes and confessing by himself and clearly scheming to subvert justice — yes, imagine your darling Anas — subverting justice to favour a Gold Scammer and bribing police chiefs and prosecutors. In the words of the court, he is an extortionist, a blackmailer and corrupt.

But well, he who is without sin should cast the first stone. Also, he who is with sin should not wear a secret camera! Lol.

Now, Kennedy Agyapong also leveled several other accusations against Anas, including murder of some Chinese on mining sites and having a sexual, adulterous relationship with the late J.B’s wife and later selling off the late MP’s UK properties jointly etc.

While the court confirmed Anas as corrupt, a blackmailer, and an extortionist, which I agree 101%, it’s rather disappointing for me that the court did not address the serious accusations of murder against Anas.

While this attitude of Kennedy Agyapong has reduced since he announced his presidential bid, he had a reputation. The court had an opportunity to caution Kennedy Agyapong against making and repeating similar sometimes unsubstantiated allegations against people that affect their reputation in the judgment of reasonable members of society when he is provoked even slightly on Radio and TV.

Kennedy Agyapong’s history of and propensity to make some unfounded claims against people should have been cautioned against by the court, even if the judge didn’t consider it worth awarding damages in favour of Anas.

In just that single instance, the court failed and that little bit, could be the only hope and also the rope Anas has to redeem or hang himself by jumping around, issuing statements and pretending the court was wholly unfair to him.

But whatever it is, we, who know him, know him — forever. God bless Ghana.

By Mikdad Mohammed, the Writer is a Proud Ghanaian Citizen.

Send your news stories to newsghana101@gmail.com Follow News Ghana on Google News

NO COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

WP Radio
WP Radio
OFFLINE LIVE
Exit mobile version