Judge in Ghana places injunction on investigative report a journalist is yet to write – Ghana Business News
In a concerning development that has sent shockwaves through Ghana’s media landscape, a judge at the Human Rights Court 2 in Accra has granted an interlocutory injunction to Cynthia Adjei, the CEO of Lysaro Group, effectively preventing an investigative journalist from publishing a report on allegations of unethical practices and potential conflicts of interest within the company.
The case began when Innocent Samuel Appiah, a freelance investigative journalist, sent a detailed questionnaire to Mrs. Adjei, seeking information and cooperation regarding various concerns that had been raised about Lysaro Group’s business operations.
The allegations centered around the company’s land acquisitions, contract awards, and tax compliance practices. Instead of responding directly to the issues raised in the questionnaire, Mrs. Adjei opted to seek legal recourse, requesting the court to block the publication of Appiah’s investigative report.
To the surprise and dismay of legal experts and media advocates, Justice Nana Brew, the judge granted the injunction. In his ruling, the judge cited the need to protect Mrs. Adjei’s “fundamental human rights” and the “fear she has in the publication.” Furthermore, the judge stated that the “balance of convenience” favored the plaintiff, as damages would not suffice if the report was published. Curiously, the report is yet to be written.
It is important to note that Mrs. Adjei has argued that she is a private person who has never occupied public office. However, the investigative report alleges that her husband was once the Group Chief Finance Officer for GOIL GH. Plc and later became the acting Managing Director before leaving office this year. It is further alleged that Lysaro Group secured contracts from GOIL and the Students Loan Trust Fund, where Mrs. Adjei’s husband also served as the Board Chairman, making her a politically exposed person.
This decision has raised serious concerns about the state of press freedom and the protection of the public’s right to information in Ghana. The judge’s ruling appears to prioritize the privacy and reputation of a corporate entity over the vital role of investigative journalism in exposing potential wrongdoing and holding powerful individuals and organizations accountable.
“This ruling is a significant setback for press freedom and the public’s right to know. By granting an injunction to prevent the publication of a legitimate investigative report, the judge has effectively placed the interests of a private company owned by a politically exposed person above the public’s need for transparency and accountability. This is a concerning development that must be addressed,” said Emmanuel K Dogbevi, the Vice President of The African Editors Forum (TAEF).
The judge’s ruling highlights the delicate balance that must be struck between the right to privacy and the right to press freedom. Both are constitutionally enshrined rights in Ghana, and neither should be considered inherently superior to the other.
The Ghanaian Constitution protects the fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to privacy and the freedom of expression, which encompass press freedom. The challenge lies in finding the appropriate equilibrium when these rights appear to be in tension with one another.
Mrs. Adjei has argued that as a private individual, she has a reasonable expectation of privacy that should be upheld by the courts. On the other hand, the investigative journalist maintains that the public interest in scrutinizing the operations and potential conflicts of interest within Lysaro Group takes precedence.
Experts argue that the judge’s decision to grant the injunction may have been premature, as a more thorough analysis of the specific circumstances and the competing rights at play could have led to a different outcome.
“The judge should have carefully examined the nature and extent of the allegations, the evidence presented, and the potential public interest in the information. A blanket prioritization of privacy over press freedom sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the foundations of a healthy democracy,” said the TAEF Vice President, who is also the Managing Editor of Ghana Business News.
As the legal battle continues, the Ghanaian judiciary will be faced with the challenge of navigating this complex intersection of constitutional rights. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for the future of investigative journalism and the public’s access to information in the country.
It is crucial that the courts strike the right balance, ensuring that both the right to privacy and the right to press freedom are respected and protected. Only then can we truly uphold the democratic principles that Ghana aspires to.
The case has drawn widespread attention, with legal experts and media advocates condemning the judge’s decision as a dangerous precedent that undermines the fundamental principles of democracy and transparency.
“The public interest in the allegations made against Mrs. Adjei far outweighs any potential harm to the company’s reputation. The investigative journalist should have been granted the opportunity to present a fair and balanced report, allowing the public to scrutinize the issues and draw their own conclusions,” declared Mr. Dogbevi.
This ruling is part of a concerning global trend of corporations and powerful individuals using legal tools, in cases known as Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), to suppress or delay the publication of investigative reports that may be critical of their actions or expose wrongdoing. It is often also used against activists and whistleblowers.
A review of similar cases from around the world highlights the extent of the use of SLAPP against investigative journalism. In 2009, the UK-based oil trading company Trafigura obtained a “super-injunction” to prevent ‘The Guardian’ newspaper from reporting on a leaked document about the company’s involvement in a toxic waste dumping incident in Côte d’Ivoire. The injunction was eventually lifted after public outcry and widespread criticism that it violated press freedom.
In 2016, the wrestler Hulk Hogan sued the news website ‘Gawker’ for publishing a sex tape involving him. The court initially granted Hogan a temporary injunction to prevent ‘Gawker’ from publishing the tape. The injunction was later lifted, but the case ultimately resulted in Gawker’s bankruptcy and closure, seen by many as a chilling effect on investigative journalism.
Similarly, in 2016, the South African newspaper ‘The Citizen’ was granted an interlocutory injunction preventing it from publishing allegations of corruption against then-President Jacob Zuma. The injunction was later overturned on appeal, but the incident highlighted the use of legal tactics to suppress critical reporting.
These cases demonstrate a concerning global trend that undermines the fundamental role of investigative journalism in holding the powerful accountable and informing the public.
Fortunately, there are international laws and conventions that aim to protect journalists and press freedom from the use of injunctions and other legal tactics to suppress investigative reporting. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights all enshrine the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information.
These international human rights instruments, which have been ratified by countries around the world, including Ghana, establish a strong legal framework for protecting the rights of journalists and the press to investigate, report, and share information in the public interest.
These international laws should compel judges to carefully weigh the public interest and the right to freedom of expression when considering requests for injunctions, rather than prioritizing the private interests of powerful individuals or corporations.
However, the reality on the ground is that national courts, including the Ghanaian judiciary, do not always uphold these international standards, as evidenced by the recent ruling in the Lysaro Group case.
The judge’s decision to grant the injunction in this case is a clear deviation from the principles of press freedom and the public’s right to information. It sends a chilling message to investigative journalists and undermines the crucial role they play in a healthy democracy.
The case has drawn widespread condemnation from advocacy groups and media organizations, who have vowed to continue supporting the investigative journalist, Innocent Samuel Appiah, and ensuring that the public’s right to information is protected.
As the legal battle continues, the question remains: will the Ghanaian judiciary uphold the principles of press freedom and public interest, or will corporate influence and the desire to protect the reputations of powerful entities continue to undermine the crucial watchdog role of investigative journalism in Ghana?
This case serves as a wake-up call for the country, highlighting the urgent need to strengthen the legal protections for journalists and the media, and to ensure that the courts prioritize the public’s right to information over the private interests of corporate entities. Only by upholding these fundamental principles can Ghana truly safeguard the democratic values and transparency that are essential for the country’s continued progress and development.
The post Judge in Ghana places injunction on investigative report a journalist is yet to write appeared first on Ghana Business News.