In a dramatic legal twist in New Jersey, USA, the defamation case brought by Ghanaian investigative journalist Anas Aremeyaw Anas against politician Kennedy Agyapong has taken a stunning turn.

The Essex County Superior Court has reduced the jaw-dropping $18 million jury award to a mere $500, citing legal limitations under state law, Ghanaguardian.com can exclusively reveal.

The court’s decision comes just weeks after an eight-member jury found Agyapong liable for defamation, handing Anas a sweeping victory with $5 million in actual damages, $5 million in compensatory damages, and $8 million in punitive damages.

But on Friday morning, Judge Jeffrey B. Beacham ruled that under New Jersey law, such an award was not legally sustainable.

The Law vs. The Jury

According to New Jersey statutes, actual damages for defamation are capped at $500, unless a plaintiff can show concrete financial or reputational losses.

Anas, despite the emotional testimony and global attention the case drew, failed to present sufficient evidence of tangible harm—such as job loss, income reduction, or psychological trauma—arising from Agyapong’s remarks.

Moreover, U.S. law stipulates that punitive damages cannot be granted unless compensatory damages are established.

With the compensatory claims thrown out, the court was legally bound to reduce the award to $500—the only amount permissible based on actual damages alone.

In his ruling, Judge Beacham applied what is known in legal terms as a remittitur, adjusting the jury’s emotional but legally unsupported award to fall in line with what the law allows.

Smart Legal Strategy Pays Off

Kennedy Agyapong’s legal team, led by E. Carter Corriston Jr., had swiftly responded to the original verdict by filing for a remittitur and rejecting the option of a mistrial. Their decision proved tactically sound.

A mistrial could have granted Anas another opportunity to fill in evidentiary gaps, but by focusing solely on the damages, Agyapong’s lawyers cornered the case within its legal constraints.

"The jury’s verdict was excessive, emotional, and unsupported by law," Corriston wrote in a filing that ultimately swayed the court. He added that Anas presented “no experts, no witnesses, and no testimony” about damages, making the award untenable.

Anas’ Strategy Backfires?

Anas, who told the BBC after the initial ruling that he was “hopeful” about receiving the $18 million and that the verdict sent “a strong message,” now finds himself facing a symbolic victory rather than a financial one.

Sources close to the legal process say that Anas had negotiated to pay his lawyers a percentage of the damages, rather than hourly fees—a gamble that, given the $500 outcome, may now leave him significantly out of pocket.

Critics of Anas’ legal approach argue that he relied too heavily on emotion and public sentiment, referencing the murder of his colleague Ahmed Suale and alleged judicial corruption in Ghana. These references, the court said, were “severely prejudicial” and irrelevant to the defamation claims being tried in New Jersey.

A Case That Gripped Two Continents

The legal battle stems from Agyapong’s controversial remarks made on a U.S.-based podcast, where he labeled Anas a “criminal” and alleged links to Suale’s murder.

The statements came after Anas released a documentary implicating several figures—including football officials and judges—in alleged corruption.

After losing an earlier defamation case in Ghana, Anas took the matter to New Jersey, where Agyapong owns property. The U.S. jury ruled in his favor, but Friday’s ruling now reshapes the narrative entirely.

Beyond the Verdict

Despite the ruling, Anas remains defiant. “The bigger impact for me is not the money,” he told the BBC after the initial verdict. “It’s about the message it sends—that journalists can hold the powerful to account.”

However, this stunning reversal may instead highlight the difficult balance between legal standards and public emotion. The case has exposed both the power and limits of litigation as a tool for accountability—and raises questions about strategy, evidence, and the rule of law.

As for Kennedy Agyapong, his legal and public vindication comes at a crucial time as he navigates political ambitions back home in Ghana. The $500 judgment may be nominal, but for his team, it's a resounding legal victory.