FOOD FOR THOUGHT

1. 1. The evidence of an illiterate person is as good as that of a literate person no matter how technical it may be. For instance an illiterate caretaker of land who has been in this business of caretaking over the same piece of land for over twenty (20) years is accepted even though there may be a few slips in his evidence. The saying goes “illiteracy is a disease” , however, is it so when an illiterate man has been doing the same thing and living the same way for over a century? Trust me, he knows what he’s talking about. It is only a market woman, trading in the sale of tomatoes for centuries who knows the seasons and times of harvest, sale, profit and loss” No matter your level of education, so far as you are not in the same “shoes” as this market woman, you will never know.

2. Thomas Paine, in 1787 in one of his writings to “The opposers of the Bank” wrote thus:- 

“An insinuation, which a man who makes it does not believe himself, is equal to lying. It is the cowardice of lying. It unites the barest part of that  vice with the meanest of all others. An open liar is a highwayman in his profession, but an insinuating liar is a thief skulking in the night.”

• In the case of Professor E.O. Adekolu vrs University of Development Sdies, Tamale and S.M. Kuuire , civila appeal, no. J4/59/2013, it was held as follows per Dotse JSC;“It is in this respect that we are of the considered view that whenever a person decides to write an opinion about someone, that opinion must not be calculated to injure the reputation of that person if the writing is published. Has the Plaintiff succeeded in proving that the published memorandum is capable of a defamatory meaning?Baron Parke, in the case of Parmiter v Couplands (1840) 6 M & W at         108,           151 E.R. 340 defined defamation to be “a publication without justification or lawful excuse, calculated to injure the reputation  of another by exposing him to hatred, ridicule or contempt.”The above definition has been found to be somewhat deficient and has been enhanced by the decisions in cases such as Youssoupoff v M.G.M    Pictures [1934] 50 T.L.R 581 where the definition of defamatory material was said to be “if any man deliberately or maliciously publishes   anything in writing concerning another which renders him ridiculous or tends to hinder mankind from associating or having intercourse with him it is actionable.”  

See also the definition by Lord Atkin in Tournier v National Provincial Bank [1924] 1 K.B. 461 where situations in which words used damage a person in his profession or business was addressed.

Lord Atkin again in Sim V Stretch [1936] 2 A.E.R 1237 restated the definition of defamation as follows:

          “Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of    the right thinking members of the society generally?

See also the case of Morgan v Lingen [1863] 8. L.T. 800 where it was held that it is defamatory to say that someone is insane. And since the Plaintiff herein has not been proven to be insane, it was highly defamatory of him to have been described as such.

From all the above definitions, it is clear from the evidence on record that the words written by the 2^nd defendant about the plaintiff, in our Ghanaian and African setting was meant to ridicule him and expose him to hatred, contempt and make him appear worthless before his peers and other right thinking persons.

A second element in the law of defamation under the common law is the interpretation of the words whether they are actually defamatory? The words must be interpreted in their fair and natural meaning as reasonable, ordinary people will understand unless an innuendo is pleaded. In the meanings ordinarily ascribed to the words used, it is clear they are defamatory especially as no innuendos have been used.

To be defamatory, there must be something in the defamatory statement referable to the plaintiff.

Finally, to constitute defamatory material, the words complained of must have been published.

Since defamation, i.e. libel and slander protect reputation, the defamatory matter must be published to enable the plaintiff claim that he has suffered damage to his reputation.”

My two pence;

In a nut shell be careful what to say or write about another person. You may be opening yourself up to defamatory action for loose talk and loose publications. These days we are bombarded with all sorts of writings and saying about people. The constitutional rights to freedom of speech is taken to a different level all together, more like an absurdity. People are defamed without knowing so and more so without knowing their rights to defamatory actions.

Let us all be vigilant and wise in our sayings and attitude. As Ghanaians we owe a duty to ourselves and to each other. Think before you speak. Do you want to be a highway man in the profession of speaking open lies or an insinuating liar making up stories? I don’t think so.

We must be our neighbors’ keeper.