When news broke on Tuesday evening that investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas had won a historic amount in damages in a U.S. libel suit against former Ghanaian legislator Kennedy Agyapong, many suggested that Anas received no justice in Ghana.

Some have argued that in Ghana, there was an orchestrated judicial scheme unfairly targeting Anas. However, few have highlighted the key differences between the court proceedings in the U.S. and Ghana.

The U.S. case was decided by a jury, while the Ghanaian case was a bench trial. In a jury trial, a panel of selected individuals from the community determines the outcome based on the evidence presented. Though guided by legal principles, jury decisions tend to be more discretionary and may be ungovernable.

In contrast, a bench trial—where the judge alone presides—places all decision-making authority in the hands of the judge, including findings of fact and legal conclusions.

Juries are well known for being generous with financial awards—often outrageously so. Their decisions do not necessarily have to be strictly legally justifiable; they only need to seem fair to the jurors.

Judges, however, are far more restrained in awarding damages. Their discretion is tightly guided by legal principles, meaning they cannot simply assign arbitrary figures. A judge’s ruling must align with established legal standards and be supported by evidence. The judge’s function is to give only what a person can prove.

For example, if a judge had awarded Anas $18 million, they would have had to justify how they arrived at that amount. Did Anas lose a contract? What factors were considered in valuing his reputation at exactly $18 million? How was the extent of the reputational damage determined? How was Anas’s reputation so badly damaged?

In the Ghanaian trial, the judge had to reach conclusions strictly based on evidence—evaluating its credibility, drawing reasonable inferences, and applying the law. This fundamental difference makes jury trials and bench trials incomparable.

Recognising that juries can sometimes be excessive in awarding damages, U.S. law provides for a procedure known as “remittitur.”

Through remittitur, a defendant who believes the damages awarded are excessive can ask the judge to reassess and reduce them to a more reasonable figure.

This explains the one-page submission by Kennedy Agyapong’s lawyers requesting the judge to grant a remittitur on the grounds that the $18 million award is excessive.

Kennedy’s legal team argues that the amount “shocks the judicial conscience” due to:

• The nature of the evidence Anas presented.
• Alleged procedural improprieties in how Anas made his case.
• The manner in which Anas closed his case.
• The overall handling of the trial.

On the remittitur, two options are possible. The judge may reject the [Hail Mary] prayer OR may reduce the amount of damages. If the judge decides to reduce the amount of damages, two options are possible. Anas has the choice to reject the reduced damages. If he rejects it, then the next option will be a new trial.

The general law however, which Kennedy’s own lawyers acknowledge is that, the judges do not easily overturn jury awards. The view is that the jury reflects what members of the community think of the justice of the case presented. If that is what the community thinks, then the judge should not interfere hence the Hail Mary.

Hail Mary, pray for us sinners in this time of Lent, for blessed are you among ALL women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. Happy fasting.