The West Africa Editors Society (WAES) has expressed concern over what it describes as a growing threat to media freedom in Ghana following a recent court ruling against investigative journalist Innocent Samuel Appiah.

Justice Nana Brew of the Human Rights Court 2 in Accra ruled in favour of businesswoman Cynthia Adjei, who had sued Mr Appiah over his investigation into her business dealings.

The probe examined Mrs Adjei’s business registration, tax obligations, and access to government land—matters of public interest.

However, the judge cited her privacy and suggested that Mr Appiah should have reported his findings to state investigative agencies such as the police Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO).

The Society, in a press release signed by its interim president Emmanuel K Dogbevi, condemned the ruling, warning that it could reduce journalists to mere informants for law enforcement, rather than independent reporters serving the public.

“Journalism is a public good, and journalists must be free to report on matters of public interest without fear of reprisal and the use of the law courts to intimidate and gag them,” the Society said in a statement.

Mr Dogbevi described the growing trend of frivolous lawsuits aimed at stopping media organisations from publishing stories as worrying for Ghana, a country often cited as a model of multiparty democracy.

“I urge Ghanaian journalists to remain resolute in pursuit of their constitutional obligations in exposing wrongdoing, holding power to account, and informing the people. History will be their best judge,” he added.

WAES also highlighted that the case appears to be an attempt at censorship, noting Mrs Adjei’s connections to a politically exposed person, her husband, a former public figure and head of state enterprises that have done business with her company.

The society is calling on Ghana’s justice system to uphold press freedom and ensure constitutional guarantees for journalists operating within the law and in accordance with professional ethics.

WAES stressed that rulings like this one send the wrong signal, threaten media independence, and could undermine the public’s right to be informed.