The Member of Parliament for Tamale North and Deputy Roads Minister, Alhassan Suhuyini has spoken out against a recent court ruling that bars freelance investigative journalist Innocent Samuel Appiah from publishing or sharing allegations concerning private individual Cynthia Adjei.

The injunction, issued by an Accra High Court, prevents Appiah from releasing any investigative findings related to Adjei’s privacy lawsuit, which accuses the journalist of breaching her privacy rights.

In an interview on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show, Mr Suhuyini expressed his strong disagreement with the ruling, questioning the motivations behind it and arguing that it could have a chilling effect on the practice of investigative journalism.

• READ ALSO: High Court bars investigative journalist from publishing on private individual, imposes GH¢10,000 cost

Though the MP admitted he had not read the full court ruling, he made it clear that he fundamentally disagrees with the decision, despite not knowing all the details of the judge’s reasoning.

“I think some of our judges are too adventurous, and I don’t know what went into the thinking of the judge,” Suhuyini said.

“I totally disagree. I have not read the full ruling that’s why I am saying I don’t know what went into the thinking of the judge. Maybe if I read the full ruling, I may come to appreciate what went into his thinking, even if I disagree with it. But I don’t think that even if I understand what went into his thinking, I will still agree with his ruling. I will not; I think that it is a no-no.”

It comes after Adjei filed a privacy lawsuit, claiming that the journalist's investigative findings were invasive and violated her personal rights.

Suhuyini, however, asserted that the role of journalists is vital to the functioning of society, particularly when it comes to exposing corruption and promoting transparency.

He explained that while journalists may choose to voluntarily share their findings with investigative bodies, their primary duty ends at the point of publication.

• READ ALSO: MFWA criticises court order blocking investigative journalist’s publications

“Journalists have their profession, and their duty is to publish information that they think can inform, educate, and reform society,” Suhuyini said.

“So if they come across information that has corruption-related issues, their duty stops at the point of publication. They don’t have the duty they may have the responsibility, but they don’t have the duty of handing it over to any investigative body.”

The MP further emphasised that investigative bodies should carry out their own investigations into matters of public concern, and that journalists are not obliged to take on this responsibility themselves.

He stated that if journalists do choose to pass on their findings to authorities, it should be seen as an act of patriotism, not as a professional obligation.

“That is the duty of the investigative bodies. The duty of the investigative body is to investigate and uncover rot,” he said.

“If they fail in that duty and a journalist does that as part of his duty, his duty ends at publication. If he chooses to be responsible and share it with the investigative body, it is just an act of patriotism it’s just an act of citizen responsibility.”

Suhuyini also questioned the need for the injunction itself, calling the court’s decision “a needless point.”

He argued that the ruling could restrict the essential work of journalists and urged the judiciary to allow journalists to carry out their roles without interference.

“Let’s leave journalists to be journalists, let’s leave our investigative bodies to be investigative bodies. Let’s encourage them to do more of the work that they are paid to do,” he said.