“In our courts, allegations-no matter how strongly asserted—do not constitute proof.”
— Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Supreme Court of Ghana (paraphrased principle from judicial rulings)
For years, Kennedy Agyapong has waged a loud and relentless campaign against investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas. But as the Supreme Court has reaffirmed, noise is not evidence, and accusation is not guilt.
The recent 5–0 unanimous ruling in favour of Anas in the Tse Addo land dispute is not an isolated victory. It is part of a consistent legal pattern: the law repeatedly invalidates unproven claims made against him.
In Ghana’s justice system, proof—not passion—determines truth.
And by that standard, every major allegation against Anas has failed.
1. Courts Have Spoken and the allegations do not stand. Ghana’s courts operate on the principle that “he who alleges must prove.” This is anchored in Section 11 of the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), which places the burden of proof squarely on the accuser.
Despite years of public declarations, no evidence has ever been submitted to any court to validate Kennedy Agyapong’s claims;not one. The High Court, Court of Appeal, and now the Supreme Court, our nation’s apex judicial body have collectively demonstrated that Anas’ ntegrity has not been legally impugned.
Even in the notable 2015 judicial corruption investigations, where over 20 judges were implicated, the courts admitted and relied upon Anas’ undercover evidence. If his work were fabricated or tainted, such evidence would have been rejected outright.
2. Endorsements from Global Institutions speak louder than accusations. The world’s most respected investigative bodies—BBC Africa Eye, Al Jazeera Investigations, OCCRP, and ICIJ have repeatedly partnered with Anas.
These institutions have:
• Their own legal due diligence teams
• Editorial auditors
• Fact-checking units
• Reputation-risk committees
If Anas were guilty of the misconduct alleged, his global partnerships would collapse immediately. Instead, they continue to grow. As BBC journalist Henry Bonsu once remarked: “Anas represents what journalism can be when courage and integrity meet.” This global recognition stands in stark contrast to unverified accusations driven by politics and personal animus.
3. Investigative Journalism is not a crime. It Is a democratic necessity. Kennedy Agyapong has often criticized Anas’ use of disguises and anonymity. But undercover reporting is a globally accepted method endorsed by:
• Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• UNESCO’s Guidelines for Safety of Journalists
• The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR)
In fact, the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) has consistently defended undercover journalism as a legitimate tool when conducted ethically and in the public interest. His identity is not a mask for wrongdoing; it is a shield against retaliation from the powerful individuals he exposes.
4. Public accusations are easy. Evidence is not. Kennedy Agyapong’s statements, however passionate, remain political speech, not judicial findings. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that public commentary, media rhetoric, and opinion even forceful opinion do not amount to evidence.
Ghana’s legal system requires:
• tangible proof
• documentation
• forensic verification
• witness corroboration
None of these have been produced to support the longstanding allegations against Anas.
In Republic v. High Court (Commercial Division), Accra; Ex parte Attorney-General [2013], the Supreme Court emphasized that justice must rely on “credible, admissible, and verifiable evidence.” By this standard, the allegations collapse entirely.
5. Silencing Investigative Journalism threatens us all. These attacks on Anas are not just an attack on one man—they are an attack on the very idea of accountability.
If journalists can be destroyed with unproven accusations, then corruption will thrive, power will go unchecked, and truth will become a casualty of political warfare.
As former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned:
“There is no development without democracy, and no democracy without accountability.” Undermining an investigative journalist who has risked his life to expose wrongdoing is not accountability. It is sabotage.
Conclusion: Let truth be measured by the Law. Not Volume. The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling is a powerful reminder that our courts deal in evidence, not emotion.
Until proven otherwise:
• Anas remains innocent under Article 19(2)(c) of Ghana’s Constitution.
• His work remains credible and internationally respected.
• The allegations against him remain exactly what they are: unproven claims.
Ghana must choose the path of law, not the path of noise.
And the law is clear: nothing Kennedy Agyapong has alleged against Anas has been proven.
In a democracy, truth must never be decided by who shouts the loudest, but by who brings the evidence.
And in this matter, only one side has evidence. And it is not the accuser.
