The imprisonment last week of The Herald newspaper’s Managing Editor, Mr. Larry Alans Dogbe, by an Accra High Court should serve as an important lesson—not only for journalists, but for every participant in Ghana’s justice system.
Mr. Dogbe was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment by Justice Isaac Addo after the Court found him guilty of contempt for allegedly breaching an interlocutory injunction that restrained further publications relating to businessman Mr. Kevin Okyere pending the determination of a substantive defamation suit. The Court held that the continued publications constituted a deliberate disregard of its order, although Mr. Dogbe has maintained that the newspaper merely reported on a petition submitted by Petraco SA to various state institutions. He has since been granted bail pending further legal processes.
The public discourse following the ruling has unfortunately blurred the distinction between defamation and contempt of court. They are not the same thing.
Defamation—whether by libel or slander—is a civil wrong. It exists to protect the reputation of individuals and institutions from false and damaging publications. A successful plaintiff is ordinarily entitled to remedies such as damages, an apology, a retraction or an injunction. In itself, a finding of defamation does not ordinarily result in imprisonment.
Contempt of court, however, is of a different character altogether. It is directed not at protecting private reputation, but at safeguarding the authority of the courts and the proper administration of justice. Under Article 126(2) of the 1992 Constitution and section 36 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), the Superior Courts possess the power to punish acts of contempt. Order 50 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) prescribes the procedure for committal.
Our courts have consistently held that where a person willfully disobeys a clear and unambiguous order of a court, that person may be committed for contempt. In Republic v High Court, Accra; Ex parte Laryea Mensah [1998-99] SCGLR 360, the Supreme Court explained that contempt is committed where there is a deliberate failure to obey a court order requiring a person to do or refrain from doing a particular act.
The distinction is an important one.
Suppose two families are litigating over ownership of a parcel of land. To preserve the subject matter of the litigation, the court may issue an interlocutory injunction restraining both parties from undertaking any development on the land until the dispute is finally determined. If one party proceeds to erect a building in defiance of that order, the issue before the court is no longer simply the land dispute. It becomes an assault on the authority of the court itself. The court is therefore entitled to punish the disobedience as contempt.
The same principle applies in defamation proceedings.
A plaintiff who alleges that his reputation has been injured may persuade the court that further publications on the disputed subject would compound the alleged injury and prejudice the pending proceedings. The court may consequently grant an injunction restraining additional publications until the substantive case is heard.
Once such an order is made, its wisdom is no longer the issue. The issue becomes obedience.
It is no defence that subsequent publications merely reproduce allegations contained in a petition or another document. If the publication falls within the scope of the injunction, the publisher risks contempt proceedings, irrespective of the source of the information. That appears to have been the central issue in the proceedings involving The Herald. The imprisonment did not arise because journalism is a crime; it arose because the Court found that its order had been breached.
This is an important distinction that every journalist should understand.
The media has an indispensable constitutional role under Articles 162 and 163 of the 1992 Constitution. It exists to inform citizens, expose wrongdoing, demand accountability and hold power to account. Those constitutional guarantees are among the strongest on the African continent and must continue to be jealously guarded.
Yet constitutional freedoms carry corresponding responsibilities.
Freedom of the press is not a licence to ignore judicial orders. Equally, judicial authority should never become a tool for suppressing legitimate investigative journalism. The balance between the two is delicate, but essential. A democratic society requires both a fearless press and an independent judiciary. One cannot flourish without the other.
The lesson for media practitioners is therefore straightforward.
First, publish only what can be substantiated with credible and verifiable evidence. Allegations contained in petitions are allegations—not established facts.
Second, insist on rigorous verification. Every publication either strengthens or weakens the credibility of a media house. Accuracy remains the journalist’s greatest protection.
Third, develop a working knowledge of the law governing defamation, contempt of court and interlocutory injunctions. Legal ignorance is rarely a successful defence.
Fourth, once litigation has commenced and a court has spoken, obtain legal advice before making further publications touching on the subject matter. A single story can transform a civil dispute into contempt proceedings carrying severe personal consequences.
Court orders are not suggestions. They are commands backed by the coercive authority of the State. Even where one disagrees with a judicial decision, the proper course is to challenge it through the appellate process—not through disobedience.
Our judiciary is not beyond criticism. No institution in a constitutional democracy is. But while a court order remains in force, obedience is not optional. It is the price society pays for the orderly administration of justice.
As a fellow media practitioner, I have every sympathy for Larry Dogbe. His case has generated legitimate debate about the relationship between judicial authority and press freedom. Nevertheless, the episode should remind all journalists that courage must always be accompanied by legal prudence.
Investigative journalism requires boldness. Responsible journalism requires discipline. The finest practitioners possess both.
(Periscope Depth of 29th June, 2026. Periscope Depth is published every Monday in The Daily Searchlight).
