A former Director of Ghana’s Bureau of National Investigations (BNI), now the National Intelligence Bureau (NIB), Ambassador Rasheed Seidu Inusah, has filed a GH¢10 million defamation lawsuit at the High Court in Accra against Dr. Bright Mawuko Ayitey, NIB’s current Head of Surveillance and author of a book that the Ambassador says contains damaging falsehoods about him.
Also named in the suit is Advent Press Limited, the publishers of the controversial book titled Intelligence in Policy and Decision Making in Africa.
Ambassador Inusah, who previously headed the BNI and served in multiple diplomatic roles, claims the book authored by Dr. Ayitey contains several defamatory passages that have severely damaged his reputation, integrity, and future prospects within the national security space.
Partisan recruitment claims
The plaintiff cites a number of passages from the book that he believes were deliberately written to tarnish his image.
Three hundred and Fifty (350) people, all party-affiliated, were brought in without due processes…” (p. 65).
Another section (p. 67) reads, “Ambassador Rasheed Inusah carried out the worst and most outrageous recruitment ever in the history of the BNI in 2018/2019.”
The author further writes: “The only thing Ambassador Rasheed did was to employ over five hundred (500) people said to be NPP loyalists and sympathizers into the BNI” (p. 121), and questions the ambassador’s leadership with the claim, ]”What was the transformation brought into the Bureau since nothing was differently done except political recruitments?” (p. 75).
Ambassador Inusah argues that these statements, which imply that he oversaw unethical, partisan, and improper recruitment practices, are false, malicious, and intended to subject him to public ridicule and contempt.
Reputational damage and emotional toll
According to court filings, Ambassador Inusah believes the statements have not only diminished his standing in the eyes of the public but have also jeopardised his career prospects and deeply affected his emotional well-being.
He asserts that the statements were made with “reckless disregard for the truth” and were deliberately crafted to misrepresent his actions during his tenure as head of the BNI.
He contends that the allegations have caused him significant emotional distress, stress, and professional uncertainty. Furthermore, he alleges that Dr. Ayitey and the publishing company failed to observe due diligence in verifying the claims before publishing.
Violation of Ghana’s national security law
In his suit, the Ambassador accuses Dr. Ayitey of breaching Section 43(1) of the Security and Intelligence Services Act, 2020 (Act 1030), which governs the ethical conduct of personnel within the intelligence community.
Ambassador Inusah also points to what he calls a careless misrepresentation of his identity in the book, where his name is inaccurately arranged.
He says this further aggravates the defamatory injury and demonstrates a lack of professional and editorial care by both author and publisher.
He maintains that no effort was made by the defendants to present a balanced narrative or to provide an opportunity for him to respond to the serious allegations made in the publication.
Request for retraction ignored
On April 7, 2025, solicitors for Ambassador Inusah formally wrote to Dr. Ayitey and Advent Press Limited, demanding the immediate removal and retraction of the offensive material.
The letter also requested a public apology and acknowledgement of the inaccuracies.
However, on April 14, 2025, Dr. Ayitey, through his legal representatives, responded to the demands with a firm refusal to retract the statements.
Instead, he defended the book as a peer-reviewed academic work developed under rigorous doctoral research conducted at the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre.
“The publication is a peer-reviewed academic work derived from rigorous doctoral research… adhering strictly to ethical standards,” the response read.
“The contested statements are documented perspectives from field respondents, anonymised per ethical guidelines, and supported by recorded interviews and field notes.”
Defendant cites scholarly protection
In his defence, Dr. Ayitey asserts that the publication enjoys academic protection and was based on years of qualitative research backed by institutional approval.
He adds that Ambassador Inusah was given the opportunity to participate in the study but declined.
“Your client was formally invited to participate in this research during and after his tenure. Regrettably, he chose not to participate,” the response reads, claiming the invitation demonstrated a commitment to fair and balanced scholarship.
Plaintiff rejects academic defence, insists on malice
Ambassador Inusah, however, finds no merit in the defence.
He argues that the claims in the book are not grounded in verifiable fact and constitute “malicious falsehoods.”
According to him, the statements go beyond academic critique and were intended to defame and damage his hard-earned professional reputation.
The plaintiff insists that neither Dr. Ayitey nor Advent Press has any viable legal defence against his claim.
He is, therefore, urging the court to recognise the publication as a direct and deliberate attack on his character.
Retraction, apology, and GH¢10m damages
In the lawsuit, Ambassador Inusah is asking the court to compel the defendants to retract all defamatory content from current and future editions of the book and to issue a formal, written apology acknowledging the inaccuracies and reputational damage caused.
He is also seeking a perpetual injunction barring the author, publisher, and their associates from repeating or republishing the defamatory statements in any form.
In addition to these, the plaintiff is requesting general damages amounting to GH¢10 million and compensation for legal costs.
While the defence claims protection under academic research norms, the plaintiff contends that no scholarly or journalistic privilege should permit false or unverified statements that harm the reputation of individuals who have served in high national office.
The High Court is yet to set a date for the hearing.
