In a landmark ruling, an Appeals Court in Accra has directed investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas to remove his signature mask while testifying in the high-profile case involving him and former Ghana Football Association (GFA) President Kwesi Nyantakyi.
The case stems from a controversial documentary produced by Anas, which exposed alleged corruption in Ghanaian football and ultimately led to Nyantakyi’s resignation.
The three-judge panel, comprising Justices Anthony Oppong, Ackaah Boafo, and Aboagye Tandoh, delivered a unanimous decision, stating that Anas cannot testify while concealing his identity. The ruling criticized an earlier decision by the High Court, which had reconsidered the state’s request to allow Anas to testify in disguise. The Appeals Court emphasized that the High Court had overstepped its authority by revisiting an issue already settled by the Supreme Court.
“The doctrine of stare decisis binds lower courts to the decisions of higher courts, and as such, the High Court erred in revisiting an issue already settled by the Supreme Court,” the ruling stated. This principle, which ensures consistency and stability in the legal system, means that lower courts must adhere to precedents set by higher courts.
The case has drawn significant public attention, not only because of its implications for Ghanaian football but also due to the unique identity of Anas, who is renowned for his undercover investigative work. For years, Anas has concealed his face to protect his identity and ensure his safety while exposing corruption and wrongdoing. However, the court’s decision challenges this practice, raising questions about the balance between journalistic anonymity and the legal requirement for transparency in court proceedings.
Kwesi Nyantakyi, the former GFA president, has been in a legal battle with Anas since the release of the documentary, which accused him of corruption and led to his resignation in 2018. Nyantakyi has denied the allegations and is seeking redress in court.
The ruling has sparked mixed reactions, with some applauding the court for upholding legal principles and others expressing concern over the potential risks to Anas’s safety and the broader implications for investigative journalism. Critics argue that forcing Anas to reveal his identity could deter whistleblowers and journalists from exposing corruption, while supporters of the ruling maintain that transparency in court is essential for justice to be served.
As the case continues, the decision marks a pivotal moment in Ghana’s legal and media landscape. It remains to be seen how Anas will respond to the court’s directive and what impact this ruling will have on future investigative journalism in the country. For now, the spotlight remains firmly on the courtroom, where the clash between anonymity and accountability continues to unfold.
