A High Court in Accra (Human Rights Division), presided over by Justice Nana Brew, has placed a perpetual injunction on freelance investigative journalist Innocent Samuel Appiah, restraining him from publishing or disseminating allegations against private individual Cynthia Adjei, following a privacy breach suit.

In addition to the injunction, the court awarded costs of GH¢10,000 against the journalist.

The ruling effectively bars Mr Appiah from pursuing any investigative publications or commentary linked to the subject matter of the case, whether directly or indirectly, across both traditional and digital media platforms.

In delivering the decision, Justice Brew held that while press freedom is constitutionally guaranteed, it is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law, particularly where individual rights and reputational interests are concerned.

The court emphasises that journalists have a responsibility to act with due diligence and within established legal and institutional frameworks.

The judge further noted that investigative journalists should channel allegations of criminal conduct to state institutions such as the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) and the Ghana Police Service, rather than unilaterally publishing potentially harmful claims.

Although the court refused the plaintiff’s request for damages, it found that the journalist’s actions exposed the plaintiff to reputational harm and granted the injunction to prevent further damage.

"From the totality of the evidence available, if the first respondent felt that the information was of public interest, he should not have sought the publication of them. Rather should have reported to the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), the Police, CID or the National Intelligence Bureau to take up action, as publishing amounts to an invasion of the applicant's privacy rights".

"Thus, on a balancing exercise in the enforcement of Human rights provisions of the Constitution, this is a clear violation of the applicant's rights as against the public interest", the ruling said.

"In conclusion, the information 1st respondent is seeking from the applicant for publication is against her fundamental human rights, particularly her right to privacy".

Background

In June 2025, Justice Brew granted an interlocutory injunction to Cynthia Adjei, CEO of Lysaro Group, preventing Mr Appiah from publishing a report on alleged unethical practices and potential conflicts of interest within the company.

The case arose after MMrAppiah sent a detailed questionnaire to Mr and Mrs Djei, seeking information on concerns about Lysaro Group’s business operations, including land acquisitions, contract awards, and tax compliance. Instead of responding, Mrs Mrsjei opted to seek legal intervention to block the report’s publication.

In granting the injunction, the judge cited the need to protect Mrs Adjei’s “fundamental human rights” and the “fear she has of the publication.” The judge further noted that the “balance of convenience” favoured the plaintiff, as damages would not suffice if the report were published, even though the story had not yet been written.

Mrs Adjei maintains that she is a private individual who has never held public office. However, the journalist highlighted that her husband previously served as Group Chief Finance Officer and later acting Managing Director at GOIL GH. Plc before leaving office this year. It is also alleged that Lysaro Group secured contracts from GOIL and the Students Loan Trust Fund, where her husband served as Board Chairman, making her a politically exposed person.

Read Also: High Court bars investigative journalist from publishing on private individual, imposes GH¢10,000 cost

Mr Appiah did not publish any story against Mr and Mrs Deji but had only posed questions through private messages and letters as part of standard verification procedures before publication.

The ruling has sparked debate within media and legal circles, with press freedom advocates expressing concern over its implications for investigative journalism, while others argue it underscores the importance of responsible and lawful reporting.

The case contributes to ongoing national conversations about the limits of press freedom, the protection of individual rights, and the role of the courts in balancing public interest journalism with personal reputation.