An Accra High Court (Human Rights Division) has issued a permanent restraining order against freelance investigative journalist Innocent Samuel Appiah, prohibiting him from publishing or circulating claims involving private citizen Cynthia Adjei after a lawsuit over alleged invasion of privacy.

The court, presided over by Justice Nana Brew, also imposed a cost of GH¢10,000 on the journalist.

The decision prevents Mr. Appiah from undertaking or releasing any investigative material connected to the subject of the case, whether in print, broadcast, or online, and whether directly or indirectly related.

In his judgment, Justice Brew acknowledged that media freedom is protected under the Constitution but clarified that it is subject to legal limits, especially when it conflicts with personal rights such as privacy and reputation. The court stressed that journalists are expected to operate with caution, responsibility, and respect for existing legal processes.

Justice Brew further explained that when journalists suspect criminal wrongdoing, such information should be forwarded to appropriate state agencies, including the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) and the Ghana Police Service, rather than being published without institutional validation.

Although the court declined to award damages to the applicant, it ruled that the journalist’s conduct posed a real risk to her reputation, justifying the grant of a perpetual injunction to avert further harm.

The court held that, based on the evidence, if the journalist believed the information was of public concern, the appropriate course of action would have been to alert state investigative bodies. Publishing the material, the judge noted, would amount to an infringement of the applicant’s right to privacy. In balancing competing constitutional rights, the court concluded that the applicant’s personal rights outweighed any asserted public interest.

The judge added that the information sought for publication violated the applicant’s fundamental human rights, particularly her right to privacy.

Background

In June 2025, the same court granted an interim injunction in favour of Cynthia Adjei, the Chief Executive Officer of Lysaro Group, restraining Mr. Appiah from releasing a report that allegedly focused on questionable business practices and possible conflicts of interest involving the company.

The dispute began after the journalist sent a comprehensive set of questions to Mr. and Mrs. Adjei, requesting clarification on issues relating to Lysaro Group’s operations, including land dealings, contract awards, and tax matters. Rather than respond, Mrs. Adjei sought legal action to stop the publication of the report.

In granting the initial injunction, Justice Brew cited the need to safeguard Mrs. Adjei’s fundamental rights and her stated apprehension about the potential publication. The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, noting that financial compensation would not adequately remedy the harm if the report were released, even though it had not yet been written.

Mrs. Adjei maintains that she is a private individual with no history of holding public office. However, the journalist pointed out that her husband previously served as Group Chief Finance Officer and later Acting Managing Director of GOIL Ghana Plc before leaving the position earlier this year. It was further alleged that Lysaro Group obtained contracts from GOIL and the Students Loan Trust Fund, where her husband had served as Board Chairman, a factor the journalist argued placed her within the category of politically exposed persons.

Mr. Appiah insists that he never published any story about Mr. or Mrs. Adjei and only sent questions through private correspondence as part of routine fact-checking prior to publication.

The ruling has generated mixed reactions among media practitioners and legal experts. While some see it as a necessary reminder of lawful and responsible journalism, press freedom advocates worry about its potential impact on investigative reporting.

The case adds to the broader national debate on press freedom, individual privacy, and how courts should strike a balance between public interest journalism and the protection of personal reputation.