Artiste manager, Lawrence Nana Asiamah Hanson, also known as Bulldog, has sued dancehall artiste Shatta Wale for defamation.
The suit against Charles Nii Armah Mensah comes after the musician claimed that Bull Dog was allegedly involved in the death of the late artiste manager Fennec Okyere.
The late Fennec, manager of the controversial musician Kwaw Kese, was murdered at his Manet Gardens residence on Spintex Road on Thursday, March 13, 2014, by unknown assailants.
He died at 31.
Bull Dog was later picked up by the Police Criminal Investigative Department (CID) as a suspect in the death of Fennec Okyere. This was because Bulldog had regular beef with the late Fennec and had supposedly threatened him in an interview.
But in 2017, the courts, on the Attorney-General’s advice, said there was no evidence against the suspect and discharged Bulldog.
However, ‘My Level’ hitmaker Shatta Wale claimed that he had strong evidence to incriminate Bull Dog.
In a recent post, Shatta Wale wrote, “Bull Dog, since you are bringing out secrets, you will tell Ghanaians what happened to Fenicks Murder!! And I am not joking about this time. I am ready to tell the court about what you told me about you and your men and how you planned that foolish act, get ready. This Akufo-Addo won’t give you a murderer chance to be on our streets! Watch how this ends! You can’t fight time.”
In the writ filed at an Accra High Court, Bulldog’s lawyers indicated that these statements seek to suggest that he planned, effected or had a hand in Mr Okyere’s death.
They added that Shatta Wale’s claims also meant “that the Plaintiff is a criminal gangster and a danger to society and ought to be in jail (rather than walk freely in the streets).”
Bulldog’s team insists that these statements are false, malicious and only defame the artiste manager.
What are the reliefs?
1. A declaration of the court that the series of publications made by Defendant [Shatta Wale] are defamatory to Plaintiff [Bull Dog].
2. A declaration of the court that the series of publications made by Defendant in the Statement of Claim are malicious.
3. An order of the court directed at Defendant to on all his social media pages or accounts, make a publication on seven consecutive days of an unqualified retraction of and unreserved apology for the defamatory words that Defendant has published about Plaintiff, such retraction and apology to be vetted and approved by the Plaintiff’s lawyers.
4. An order of the court for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, workmen, assigns and servants from publishing or further publishing any defamatory words against the Plaintiff.
5. General damages for defamation.
6. Special damages for defamation.
7. Punitive damages for the malicious publication of falsehood against Plaintiff.
8. Cost, and any other orders or remedies that the court may deem fit.