A lawyer and lecturer at the University of Media, Arts and Communication (UniMAC), Zakaria Tanko Musah, has warned that Ghana's lack of a dedicated defamation law is exposing journalists to strategic lawsuits intended to intimidate and silence the media rather than seek justice.

Speaking on JoyNews during a discussion on defamation suits against journalists, Mr Musah said Ghana's legal framework on defamation remains grounded in common law, with no standalone legislation defining the offence or establishing clear legal parameters.

"We don't have a law that defines what defamation is. It's a common law thing where judges have defined it," he said.

According to him, under the common law framework, defamation occurs when a false statement about a person causes them to be viewed negatively by a reasonable member of society.

"Defamation is simply making a false statement about someone that makes them look bad. That's all," he explained.

Mr Musah argued that the absence of codified legislation has created legal uncertainty, making it easier for powerful individuals to weaponise the courts through Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs).

He said such lawsuits are often filed not because journalists have acted unlawfully, but to burden them with costly legal battles they may be unable to sustain.

"Sometimes the defamation suit is not because the journalist has done something wrong. Sometimes it's strategic — people just want to intimidate you, they want to silence you, and they know the journalists really don't have the capacity to fight them. So they will just go to court and sometimes never even show up," he said.

Also contributing to the discussion, the General Secretary of the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA), Dominic Hlordze, agreed that the financial imbalance between journalists and influential litigants has made the courts a tool for suppressing critical reporting.

"The person realises that the journalist hasn't got what it takes to meet me in court. And so he runs to court to put you down," Mr Hlordze said.

He urged individuals and institutions who feel aggrieved by media publications to first exercise their right of rejoinder instead of immediately resorting to litigation.

"If you publish a statement about anybody or an institution, they have a right to bring a rejoinder to you, and you have an obligation to publish that rejoinder — whether you agree with them or not," he stated.

Mr Hlordze cited a previous instance in which a former Attorney General responded to a publication by submitting a rejoinder to the Graphic newspaper rather than pursuing court action, describing it as a more constructive approach to resolving media disputes.

He further noted that strict adherence to the GJA Code of Ethics would significantly reduce journalists' exposure to legal action.

According to him, research conducted by the Association found that nearly 40 per cent of the provisions contained in the Code of Ethics overlap with existing laws, meaning journalists who comply with the code are less likely to face legal challenges.

"All they need to do is to adhere to the GJA Code of Ethics and I'm telling you they would never ever get into that problem," he said.