Mrs. Angelina Domakyaare, Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as additional High Court judge in the Human Rights Division, recently delivered a favourable judgment for my clients Afia Pokua and co. They sued the NHIA and two of it officers for assaulting them and violating their rights to work and safely as journalists.

The court affirmed their rights in article 21 to free speech and expression including freedom of the media, their article 162(4) and (5) rights to non interference with editorial opinions, views or content of publication and also to hold government to account to the citizens. The court concluded that "[t]he work of reporters, journalists and media houses necessarily involves working outside the confines of their office structures. No matter the case, they are entitled to among other things work under safe conditions. Anyone who assaults them or fails to prevent an assault on them in the ordinary course of their business when they have a duty to do so violates their right to work under safe conditions."

From the landmark cases of Radio Eye, NPP v GBC and the recent Citizen Ghana right to information sweet victory on the infamous bus branding saga, it is the courts that have constantly justified, reaffirmed and strengthened media rights and free expression.

Let's act more responsibly before it is too late. In the Liberty Press case in 1968, the court observed thus: "It must be appreciated by the press and all other freedom lovers that without a judiciary strong, courageous and respected that can effectively protect the freedom which we all love so much, all talk about freedom, whether it be in the lecture room or at Bukom Square, remains no more than a mere metaphysical speculation, and the courts are entitled to look upon men such as are before me today to help them in the acquisition of the requisite strength, courage and respect.

One of the surest ways of doing so is to refrain from commenting on proceedings which are pending in the courts. For these constitute some of the most fruitful fields of contempt. There is however no law which prohibits absolutely any such comments, but there is law which punishes if the limits set by law are transgressed, as indeed they have been transgressed in this case."

Earlier in 1961 the famous Justice Ollenu noted that "[t]he object of the discipline enforced by the Court in case of contempt of Court is not to vindicate the dignity of the Court or the person of the Judge, but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice. The question, therefore, here is whether there has been an interference with the administration of justice."

In 1994, the Supreme Court speaking through Justice Bamford-Addo in the famous Page 28 case, encouraged that “[c]riticism of the court and of judicial decisions however rambunctious, whether or not in good taste, and despite inaccurate statements of fact, would not amount to contempt of court and is within the limits of the inalienable right of every individual’s freedom of speech."

Media owners, don't put ignorant bigots behind your consoles.
Media practitioners, don't hand the microphones to reckless nation wreckers.
Media users, the platform is not a battlefield for bloodletting but for information, education and entertainment.
Listeners and viewers, tune off in protest and in demand for the best you deserve.
Let's all act more responsibly and professionally before it gets too late.

Let's watch it!

Silence is not an option when things are ill done - Lord Denning