Ghana court issues gag order, fines reporter for requesting comment

Abuja, January 21, 2026—The Committee to Protect Journalists calls on Ghanaian authorities to protect public interest reporting after a court fined Innocent Samuel Appiah for asking a businesswoman to comment on allegations of fraud as he was investigating her activities.

Justice Nana Brew ruled that freelance journalist Appiah had violated the privacy of Cynthia Adjei, CEO of the Lysaro Group, by asking her several times to respond to allegations of nonpayment of taxes, wrongful acquisition of government land, and conflicts of interest in procurement contracts, according to court documents, reviewed by CPJ.

In a November 7 ruling, which was not made public until late December, Brew issued a permanent gag order against Appiah’s investigation and fined him 10,000 cedis (US$945), the journalist and his lawyer, Michael Yauri, told CPJ. Brew had previously issued an interim injunction.

“The court’s decision to punish journalist Innocent Samuel Appiah and bar him from publishing a report about alleged corruption, which was clearly in the public interest, is alarming,” said CPJ Africa Director Angela Quintal. “Ghanaian authorities must act swiftly to prevent judicial institutions being misused to gag the media, whose freedom is guaranteed by the constitution.”

On January 12, 2026, Appiah appealed the court’s decision on the grounds that “the judge misdirected himself in law, when he placed the unsubstantiated violation of privacy … over public interest,” according to court documents, reviewed by CPJ.

In January 2025, Appiah sent Adjei more than a dozen detailed questions in a letter, which CPJ reviewed. When she did not reply, Appiah told her that he planned to hold a press conference about his findings, court documents show.

In response, Adjei sought an injunction from the Human Rights Court in the capital, Accra, on the grounds that the journalist had interfered with her constitutional right to privacy.

In an 8,000-word judgment, the judge ruled that the information Appiah sought from Adjei was “against her fundamental Human Rights, particularly her right to privacy,” while recognizing that a “balance must be struck between the claimant’s right to privacy and a publisher’s right to publish and the right of the public to know.”

Appiah told the court that he had 30 years’ experience as a journalist and was committed to investigative journalism, which “acts as a watchdog, ensuring that powerful individuals and entities are held accountable by bringing their misdeeds into the public domain.”

“A mere enquiry for information of public interest in order to give the Applicant the opportunity to state her side of the story cannot be described as an invasion of privacy,” he said, adding that the right to privacy was not absolute.

However, the judge ruled that if Appiah believed the information was in the public interest, he should not have sought to publish it but should have reported it to the Economic Organized Crime Office, the police’s Criminal Investigation Department, or the National Intelligence Bureau.

Two regional press groups, Media Foundation for West Africa and West Africa Editors Society, expressed concern over the ruling’s suggestion that journalists should work in service of Ghana’s law enforcement agencies, instead of the public.

CPJ called and sent text messages to Adjei and her lawyers on January 6 but received no replies.