Journalist Appeals Bizarre Ruling Threatening Press Freedom

In what legal observers are calling an unprecedented interpretation of Ghana’s Data Protection Act, freelance investigative journalist, Innocent Samuel Appiah has formally appealed a controversial High Court ruling that appears to shield individuals from legitimate public scrutiny under the guise of privacy protection. The appeal, filed on January 12, 2026, challenges a November 7, 2025 judgement by Justice Nana Brew, that critics argue creates an alarming precedent for suppressing information of public interest and threatening press freedom. The case has sparked intense debate within Ghana’s legal community about whether the country’s data protection laws are being misinterpreted to create absolute immunity from public accountability, potentially undermining fundamental principles of transparency and democratic governance and freedom of the press. A ruling that defies legal logic At the heart of the controversy lies Justice Brew’s interpretation of the Data Protection Act, which Mr. Appiah’s legal team characterizes as fundamentally flawed. According to the Notice of Appeal filed through Michael Youri of Kpatsa & Associates, the High Court Human Rights Division 2 erroneously concluded that Ghana’s data protection legislation creates an absolute prohibition on publishing information, even when such information serves legitimate public interests. This interpretation, legal experts suggest, represents a radical departure from established principles of data protection law worldwide. Modern data protection legislation, including Ghana’s own Act, typically incorporates balancing mechanisms that weigh individual privacy rights against competing interests such as public safety, institutional accountability, and the public’s right to know. “The trial court’s interpretation would effectively create an impenetrable shield around any individual who claims a privacy violation, regardless of the public importance of the information at stake,” noted one senior legal practitioner who requested anonymity. “This cannot have been the legislature’s intention when enacting the Data Protection Act.” Procedural irregularities raise questions Perhaps more troubling than the substantive legal interpretation are the procedural irregularities that appear to have characterized the original trial. According to Mr. Appiah’s appeal, applicant Cynthia Adjei failed to meet even the most basic requirements for establishing a privacy violation claim. The appeal documents reveal that Mrs. Adjei, represented by Bobby Banson of Robert Smith Law Group, never specifically articulated in her pleadings how her privacy had allegedly been violated. In civil litigation, this represents a fundamental procedural deficiency that should ordinarily result in the dismissal of a claim. “The Applicant never indicated by way of averments in her pleadings how her privacy had been violated,” the appeal states, highlighting what appears to be a glaring oversight in the original proceedings. This failure to provide proper notice of the claim allegedly deprived Mr. Appiah of the opportunity to mount an adequate defense. Even more concerning is the appellant’s assertion that Mrs. Adjei “led no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that her privacy was violated.” If accurate, this suggests that Justice Nana Brew rendered judgement in favour of an applicant who failed to prove her case through credible evidence—a fundamental violation of basic legal principles. The public interest dilemma The most significant aspect of the appeal challenges the trial court’s apparent conclusion that Ghana’s Data Protection Act forbids the publication of information that serves the public interest. This interpretation, if allowed to stand, could have devastating consequences for investigative journalism, civil society advocacy, and government accountability in Ghana. The appellant’s legal team argues that the Data Protection Act, properly interpreted, does not create such absolute prohibitions. Instead, like comparable legislation in other jurisdictions, it contemplates a balancing approach that considers the legitimate interests served by information disclosure against the privacy interests of individuals. This interpretation aligns with international best practices in data protection law, which recognizes that privacy rights, while fundamental, are not absolute and may be subject to limitations when compelling public interests are at stake. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, often cited as the gold standard for data protection legislation, explicitly incorporates such balancing mechanisms. Implications for media and civil society The trial court’s ruling, if upheld on appeal, could have chilling effects on media freedom and civil society operations in Ghana. Journalists investigating matters of public concern could find themselves unable to report on important stories if subjects simply invoke data protection laws as shields against scrutiny. Civil society organizations working on issues such as corruption, human rights violations, or institutional accountability could similarly find their work constrained by overly broad interpretations of privacy protections. The ruling essentially creates a legal framework where individuals can escape public accountability by claiming privacy violations, regardless of the public importance of the information at stake. Government transparency and accountability mechanisms could also suffer under such an interpretation. Freedom of information requests, public disclosures of official misconduct, and other transparency measures could be undermined if officials can invoke data protection laws to prevent disclosure of information that serves the public interest. Legal community responds The appeal has garnered significant attention within Ghana’s legal community, with many practitioners expressing concern about the precedent set by Justice Brew’s ruling. Several legal experts have noted that the judgment appears to misunderstand the fundamental purpose of data protection legislation. “Data protection laws are meant to prevent the misuse of personal information, not to create absolute immunity from public accountability,” explained one constitutional law expert. “The trial court’s interpretation effectively weaponizes privacy rights against transparency and democratic governance.” Others have pointed to the apparent procedural irregularities in the original trial as evidence of deeper problems with how the case was handled. The failure to require proper pleadings and evidence from the applicant raises questions about whether due process was followed. The Attorney-General’s curious role The involvement of the Attorney-General as a respondent in the original case adds another layer of complexity to the matter. While the Attorney-General was named as a party, the government’s position on the substantive legal issues remains unclear from the public record. Given that the case involves interpretation of a significant piece of legislation with broad implications for government operations, transparency, and accountability, the Attorney-General’s stance on the proper interpretation of the Data Protection Act could be crucial to the appeal’s outcome. Looking toward the Court of Appeal As the case moves to the Court of Appeal, legal observers will be watching closely to see whether the higher court will correct what many view as a fundamental misinterpretation of Ghana’s data protection laws. The appellate court has the opportunity to clarify that privacy rights, while important, cannot be used as absolute shields against legitimate public scrutiny. The Court of Appeal’s decision will likely determine whether Ghana adopts a balanced approach to data protection that accommodates legitimate public interests or embraces an absolutist interpretation that prioritizes individual privacy over transparency and accountability. The stakes for democratic governance Ultimately, this appeal represents more than just a dispute between two individuals. It touches on fundamental questions about the balance between individual rights and democratic governance in Ghana. The outcome will determine whether the country’s legal framework supports transparency and accountability or creates new mechanisms for avoiding public scrutiny. As Mr. Appiah’s legal team prepares their arguments for the Court of Appeal, they carry the burden of not just defending their client, but potentially preserving Ghana’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and the public’s right to know. The bizarre ruling they seek to overturn represents a threat to these fundamental democratic principles that extend far beyond the immediate parties to the dispute. The appellate court’s decision will ultimately determine whether Justice Nana Brew’s interpretation represents an aberration to be corrected or a new direction for Ghana’s approach to balancing privacy and public interest—a direction that many believe would undermine the very foundations of democratic governance. By Peter Mensah