Public office holders have been reminded they hold sensitive offices of trust and thus they should be more accommodating of criticism and restrain from crying wolf at the least opportunity.

High Court Judge, Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay who gave the advice as part of her judgement at the end of a defamation suit, said it is high time persons holding public office are held by stricter standards.

The case

A former Director of Finance of the state-owned Intercity STC Coaches Limited, Nuhu Jansbaka, had sued two work colleagues, along with the Managing Editor of The Herald newspaper and its publishers, Prime Mark Company Limited, for alleged defamation, and demanded among others, damages of GHȼ200,000 from each of the respondents.

But Her Ladyship Justice Audrey Kocuvie-Tay disagreed particularly with claims that publications by The Herald were malicious (even if some words used were exaggerations), and dismissed the suit.

“The plaintiff being a public officer, his life and the performance of his responsibilities ought to be subjected to the litmus test. The slightest finding of impropriety against him ought to be carefully scrutinised. It is high time persons occupying public positions are held by stricter standards. They ought to realise that they occupy a sensitive position of trust and must not cry wolf at the slightest criticism meted out to them,” she held.

Background

Some workers of STC Coaches Limited had between 2012 and 2013 petitioned and demonstrated against Mr Jansbaka for alleged conflict of interest.

The agitated workers had accused the then Head of Finance and Administration of paying himself an unapproved sum of GH¢13, 019.67 from workers’ provident fund, among other allegations of wrongdoing.

He was eventually interdicted, while two committees – a committee of inquiry and a disciplinary committee - were set up to deal with the matter.

The committees established adverse findings against him but was later restored.

In 2017 he resigned from the company and sued two union leaders of STC; Messrs Samuel Korle Clotey and Hope Kofi Klu, along with Larry Dogbey, Managing Editor of The Herald and publishers of the paper.

He alleged the two former work colleagues had contracted the newspaper to soil his reputation professionally and personally, for which he demanded damages.

While the Managing Editor of The Herald and publishers of the paper pleaded the defence of fair comment, Korle Clotey and Klu who were 1^st and 2^nd defendants, denied aiding the publications in The Herald.

Fair comment

Justice Kocuvie-Tay held that once 1st and 2nd defendants denied the allegation that they published or caused to be published the publications complained of, the plaintiff ought to have led evidence to prove that indeed, they were complicit.

She said in her opinion, he failed to prove that burden, explaining that “It is trite that proof is not just by going into the witness box to repeat the averments contained in your statement of claim. It requires the production of sufficient documents to support a party’s claim”.

She consequently dismissed the case against the four, admitting Larry Dogbey and Prime Mark to the defence of fair comment.