The Deputy Director-General of the Ghana Maritime Authority (GMA), Mubarick Masawudu, has given three media houses seven days to retract a publication which linked him to the alleged use of land guards in a land dispute at Spintex or face legal action.
The demand was made through his lawyers, LIMO@LAW, in a letter dated September 15, 2026, addressed to The National Enquirer.
The other media houses named in the demand are The Insight and the Daily Democrat.
The lawyers are challenging a front-page report published on September 10, 2026, under the headline, “Maritime Authority Deputy Director Accused Of Using Land Guards In Spintex Land Dispute.”
LIMO@LAW said the publication falsely associated their client with violent and unlawful conduct and created the impression that he was involved in the use of land guards in a land dispute with which he had no connection.
The law firm said the publication had exposed Mr Masawudu to public criticism, ridicule and hostility and placed his reputation at risk.
According to the lawyers, their client is neither a party to nor connected with the land dispute referred to in the publication or any of the persons involved in it.
They further stated that Mr Masawudu had not directly or indirectly instructed, engaged, facilitated, funded or participated in any land guard activities relating to the dispute.
The lawyers described Mr Masawudu as a senior public officer who, they said, would not interfere with court proceedings or involve himself in a dispute in which he had no interest or participation.
They therefore argued that there was no factual basis for associating him with the alleged use of land guards, particularly when the publication referred to a pending civil case between the parties.
LIMO@LAW also accused the media houses of failing to conduct the necessary enquiries and properly verify the allegations before publication.
“It is a fundamental requirement of established journalistic standards that, before publication, you undertake the necessary enquiries, appropriately verify all allegations, cross-check and confirm facts and accuracy of a story,” the lawyers wrote.
The firm described the alleged failure to do so as “a serious departure” from established journalistic standards and said it had caused substantial prejudice to its client.
As part of the demands, the lawyers want the media houses to publish a clear, unequivocal and unconditional retraction of the publication insofar as it identifies or suggests that Mr Masawudu was involved in, instructed, engaged, facilitated, financed or otherwise had any connection with the alleged use of land guards.
They are also demanding that the retraction be given the same prominence as the original publication, including on the front page of the next available edition and with equivalent prominence on any digital or online platform where the story was published.
The lawyers further want the offending publication removed from the media houses’ digital and online platforms and for any further publication or circulation of the claims concerning their client to cease.
In addition, they are demanding an unqualified apology to Mr Masawudu, with equal prominence, expressly acknowledging that the publication wrongly associated him with the alleged use of land guards and clarifying that he has no involvement or connection with the land dispute or the alleged land guard activities.
The lawyers said the retraction and apology must be sufficiently clear and prominent to correct what they described as the false impression created by the original publication.
They also demanded that the retraction and apology should not be accompanied by any qualification, justification, repetition or restatement of the allegations against their client.
LIMO@LAW warned that failure, refusal or neglect by the media houses to comply within the seven-day period would result in Mr Masawudu pursuing “all appropriate legal remedies” available to him without further notice, including proceedings to protect his reputation.
The law firm stressed that the letter was not a full statement of its client’s case and did not limit, waive or prejudice any of his legal rights, remedies or causes of action.
The lawyers said those rights and remedies were expressly reserved.
By: Jacob Aggrey
