Ghanaian legal practitioner and broadcast journalist Samson Lardy Anyenini, Esquire has clarified that truth is not a legal defence in contempt of court proceedings, cautioning journalists against confusing press freedom with compliance with lawful court orders.
In a legal commentary titled “The Law 101: Contempt of Court & the Illusion of the ‘Truth’ Defence,” Mr Anyenini said there was a widespread misconception within the media that journalists could not be punished for publishing factual information. He argued that while truth is a complete defence in defamation cases, it offers no protection in contempt proceedings involving the deliberate breach of a court order.
He cited the 1995 Supreme Court decision in Republic v Mensa-Bonsu & Others; Ex Parte Attorney-General, in which the court affirmed that contempt powers exist to safeguard the administration of justice and preserve public confidence in the judiciary.
According to Mr Anyenini, Ghana’s Supreme Court has consistently applied a three-part test in civil contempt cases. The applicant must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a valid court order existed, that the alleged contemnor knew precisely what the order required or prohibited, and that the failure to comply was deliberate.
He stressed that an injunction is a binding judicial directive, regardless of whether a party considers it correct or incorrect.
”When a court issues an injunction restraining a party from making specific publications, it is not an invitation to debate the truth of the underlying facts,” he explained. “Until a court sets aside the order, disobedience may attract punishment, including imprisonment.”
Mr Anyenini acknowledged that he personally disagreed with the injunction that led to the contempt proceedings against journalist Larry Alans Dogbe. He reiterated his long-held view, drawing on the position of the late English jurist Lord Denning, that interlocutory injunctions should generally not be granted in defamation disputes, with aggrieved parties instead pursuing damages. However, he maintained that court orders remain enforceable until overturned.
Addressing criticism that the case represented an assault on press freedom, Mr Anyenini rejected that characterisation. He argued that Mr Dogbe was not convicted because he was a journalist, but because the court found that he knowingly violated an interlocutory injunction by publishing material expressly prohibited by the order.
While saying he would have preferred sanctions such as a fine, reprimand, caution or a bond of good behaviour instead of imprisonment, Mr Anyenini noted that Justice Isaac Addo acted within the scope of his lawful judicial discretion by imposing a seven-day custodial sentence.
Mr Anyenini also challenged public claims that the judiciary had acted vindictively. He revealed that, according to court records, Justice Addo granted Mr Dogbe interim bail pending appeal on 26 June 2026, one day after the conviction, in the sum of GH¢100,000 with two sureties.
He described the decision as highly unusual because, according to the court documents, no Notice of Appeal had been filed when the application was made. The bail application was instead supported by an affidavit sworn by David Tamakloe, President of the Private Newspapers and Online News Publishers Association of Ghana (PRINPAG).
Mr Anyenini further stated that the official Notice of Appeal was not filed until 6 July 2026, ten days after the interim bail had already been granted. He said the court records contradicted assertions made during a television discussion that the appeal had been filed before the bail application.
He argued that the sequence of events demonstrated judicial leniency rather than hostility towards the media.
Concluding his commentary, Mr Anyenini urged journalists, editors and media organisations to recognise that while the Constitution protects freedom of expression and media independence, those rights do not exempt them from obeying lawful court orders.
He said the media plays a vital role in informing the public and holding leaders accountable, but stressed that respect for the rule of law remains essential to the administration of justice.
