Accra High Court Gags Investigative Journalist, Awards GH¢10,000 Costs in Privacy Case

An Accra High Court (Human Rights Division) has placed a perpetual injunction on freelance investigative journalist Innocent Samuel Appiah, restraining him from publishing or disseminating allegations against a private individual, Cynthia Adjei, after finding that such publications would violate her constitutional right to privacy.

The court, presided over by Justice Nana Brew, also awarded GH¢10,000 in costs against the journalist.

The ruling bars Mr Appiah from making any investigative publications, commentary, or references—directly or indirectly—relating to the subject matter of the case across both traditional and digital media platforms.

Court’s Reasoning

In delivering the judgment, Justice Brew acknowledged that press freedom is guaranteed under the 1992 Constitution, but stressed that it is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law, especially where the privacy and reputational rights of private individuals are concerned.

The court held that journalists have a duty to act with due diligence and to operate within established legal and institutional frameworks when dealing with allegations of wrongdoing.

Justice Brew further noted that where journalists uncover suspected criminal conduct, the appropriate course of action is to report such matters to state institutions, including the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), the Ghana Police Service, or the National Intelligence Bureau, rather than publishing unverified claims that may cause reputational harm.

“From the totality of the evidence available, if the first respondent felt that the information was of public interest, he should not have sought the publication of them. Rather, he should have reported to EOCO, the Police, CID or the National Intelligence Bureau,” the ruling stated.

The judge concluded that publishing the information sought by the journalist would amount to an invasion of the applicant’s privacy rights, and that on a balance of competing constitutional rights, the applicant’s right to privacy outweighed any claimed public interest.

Although the court declined to award damages, it found that the journalist’s actions exposed the applicant to potential reputational harm, warranting the injunction to prevent further injury.

Background to the Case

The dispute dates back to June 2025, when Justice Brew granted an interlocutory injunction preventing Mr Appiah from publishing a report on alleged unethical practices and potential conflicts of interest involving Lysaro Group, a company led by Mrs Cynthia Adjei.

The case arose after Mr Appiah sent a detailed questionnaire to Mr and Mrs Adjei seeking responses to concerns relating to the company’s land acquisitions, contract awards, and tax compliance. Rather than respond to the questions, Mrs Adjei sought legal intervention to halt publication.

In granting the interim injunction, the court cited the need to protect the applicant’s fundamental human rights, noting that damages would not be an adequate remedy if the publication proceeded, even though no story had yet been published.

Mrs Adjei maintained before the court that she is a private individual who has never held public office.

However, the journalist argued that her husband previously served as Group Chief Finance Officer and later Acting Managing Director of GOIL Ghana Plc, and also chaired the board of the Students Loan Trust Fund, institutions alleged to have awarded contracts to Lysaro Group. Mr Appiah contended that these connections rendered the applicant a politically exposed person, justifying public interest scrutiny.

Notably, Mr Appiah did not publish any article on the matter and had only sent private messages and letters as part of standard pre-publication verification procedures.

Wider Implications

The ruling has sparked debate within media and legal circles, with press freedom advocates warning that the decision could have a chilling effect on investigative journalism, while others argue it reinforces the need for responsible, lawful reporting and respect for individual rights.

The case adds to the broader national conversation on the limits of press freedom, the protection of privacy, and the role of the courts in balancing public interest journalism with personal reputation.