The Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) has questioned a High Court ruling granting a permanent injunction restraining a journalist from publishing investigative findings.

The Association described the ruling as a “dagger” to press freedom.

The judgment was delivered on November 7, 2025, by the High Court (Human Rights Division) in the case of Ms Cynthia Adjei v. Mr Innocent Samuel Appiah & the Attorney‑General.

The case arose from a human rights enforcement action filed by private businesswoman Ms Adjei against investigative journalist Mr Appiah.

Ms Adjei contended that Mr Appiah, through WhatsApp messages and letters, sought detailed information about her businesses, collectively known as the Lysaro Group.

The inquiries related to alleged non-renewal of company documents, tax compliance, conflict-of-interest concerns in procurement contracts at GOIL, and the acquisition of government lands.

In his defence, Mr Appiah said he was conducting standard investigative journalism on matters of public interest.

He explained that his communications followed ethical protocol to allow the subject to respond before publication, noting that no story had been published when the lawsuit was filed.

The Court ruled in favour of Ms Adjei, finding that seeking information for publication violated her right to privacy under Article 18(2) of the Constitution.

It granted a perpetual injunction preventing the journalist from publishing any information about her and awarded costs against him but denied her claim for damages.

GJA President Mr Albert Dwumfour warned that the ruling threatened the media’s watchdog role.

“The recent ruling by the High Court sends a chilling message to every journalist in this country,” he said.

“Press freedom is not a gift from the state; it is a fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution that we must defend at all costs,” he added at the 3rd GJA Dinner Night in Accra.

Mr Dwumfour emphasised that the GJA would challenge legal actions that undermine journalists’ rights.

He called on the judiciary to balance individual reputations against the public’s right to know in a democracy.