Managing Editor of The Herald newspaper, Larry Alans-Dogbey, has filed an appeal against his conviction and seven-day prison sentence for contempt of court, asking the Court of Appeal to overturn both the conviction and the custodial sentence imposed by the High Court.

The appeal follows a June 25, 2026 decision by the High Court in Accra, presided over by Justice Isaac Addo, which found the journalist guilty of contempt in proceedings initiated by businessman Kevin Okyere.

The underlying suit also involves Springfield Exploration and Production Limited, with Prime Mark Company Limited and Abdul Razak Bawa named as co-defendants.

In a notice of appeal filed on July 1, 2026, Dogbey argues that the High Court erred in law on several grounds, including its interpretation of an interlocutory injunction that barred further publications allegedly intended to undermine Mr Okyere's reputation.

The journalist contends that the injunction amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression because it prohibited future publications before the substantive defamation case had been determined. He further argues that the trial court granted the injunction despite acknowledging that it was not deciding the merits of the main defamation suit.

According to the appeal, the injunction was inconsistent with established legal principles governing defamation cases, particularly the rule that interlocutory injunctions should generally not be granted where a defendant intends to justify the publication or where the allegedly defamatory nature of the statements is disputed.

Dogbey also argues that the injunction was too vague to be enforced, saying the order restrained him from publishing "statements intended to undermine and tarnish" the plaintiff's reputation without clearly defining what publications would breach the order.

He maintains that the wording required the court to determine his subjective intention rather than applying an objective legal standard, making it impossible for him to know with certainty what conduct was prohibited.

The appeal further argues that the High Court wrongly inferred a malicious intention from the mere publication of the stories while ignoring what it describes as evidence that the reports were published in good faith and based on official and credible sources.

Among the documents cited are correspondence from the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), the Ministry of Energy, court documents from the United Kingdom and admissions allegedly made by Mr Okyere during cross-examination.

Dogbey also contends that the trial judge failed to apply the correct standard of proof required in contempt proceedings, which are quasi-criminal in nature and require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

He argues that the burden of proof was improperly shifted onto him by requiring him to establish the truth of his publications instead of requiring the applicant to prove contempt.

The journalist further maintains that the publications were protected under Articles 162 and 165 of the 1992 Constitution because they concerned matters of public interest relating to Ghana's oil and gas sector and were based on official documents and judicial decisions.

He argues that convicting a journalist for reporting on a Supreme Court judgment and official public records amounts to an unconstitutional restriction on media freedom and freedom of expression.

The appeal also challenges the trial court's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in the Montie FM contempt case, arguing that the facts of that case are materially different because it involved threats against Supreme Court judges rather than reporting on matters of public interest.

Dogbey additionally disputes the court's application of the sub judice rule, arguing that the existence of a pending defamation suit does not automatically prevent journalists from reporting on issues of legitimate public concern.

Another ground of appeal alleges that the trial court failed to consider legal defences available to journalists, including fair and accurate reporting, qualified privilege and fair comment.

The notice also raises questions about the service of court processes, alleging that a WhatsApp screenshot relied upon as proof of service was forged and did not establish that the documents had been received by the appellant. The appeal argues that if the alleged proof of service was fraudulent, any resulting court order would be void.

Dogbey further argues that the seven-day custodial sentence was excessive and that, given his more than 20 years as a journalist and the constitutional protections afforded to the media, a non-custodial sentence should have been considered.

The appeal asks the Court of Appeal to set aside both the conviction and the sentence, declare the interlocutory injunction issued on June 11, 2025 void and of no legal effect, and quash the injunction altogether.

Read the notice of appeal in full below.