Renowned investigative journalist, Anas Aremeyaw Anas, has dismissed allegations made by some Ghanaians, including former Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu, that he engages in extortion from individuals implicated in his corruption exposés.
Martin Amidu, a former Attorney General and Minister for Justice, referred to Anas as an ‘anti-corruption entrepreneur' who profits from exposing corruption.
In response, Anas vehemently denied these claims in an interview with DW Africa, stating that he has never been involved in any corrupt activities. He further emphasized that he would not be a free man if any of the allegations against him were true.
“I have dealt with this matter before… Martin Amidu is a senior citizen of Ghana. We have publicly disagreed on this issue, and that is fair. I respect his comment. But here I am sitting here, talking to you… Nobody has ever caught me in a bribery scandal. So, like I said, it is fair. He can describe me as he wants,” Anas expressed during the interview.
Anas acknowledged that he has faced criticisms and accusations in the past, even beyond the words of Martin Amidu. He mentioned that Atlantic Magazine had described him as a spy and used various other descriptions. Nevertheless, he believes that such criticisms contribute to the development of Ghana's democracy.
“The point is, how does that push the frontiers of our democracy? And I encourage people like Martin, let them stick out their necks, let them talk, let them all make their opinions clear. At the end of the day, I know what I'm doing, I am focused on it, and I can tell you, there will be several liberal dossiers of my journalism over some time,” Anas asserted.
Martin Amidu, in his critique, accused Anas of living in fear and being an “anti-corruption entrepreneur” rather than a genuine anti-corruption crusader. Amidu highlighted Anas' decision to use a power of attorney instead of appearing in court himself during a defamation suit against Member of Parliament Kennedy Agyapong. Amidu argued that Anas lost the opportunity to present his version of the facts and establish his credibility.
“The rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence is statutory. Anas A. Anas, the plaintiff, put himself in a situation of being incapable of giving relevant and primary evidence in person and being cross-examined because he lives in the fear of his own shadow as an anti-corruption entrepreneur and not as a genuine anti-corruption crusader,” Amidu wrote.