Repeal of Criminal Libel Law: A new dawn for media freedom or a gateway to media lawlessness?
By Jerry John Akornor

A turning point in Ghana’s media landscape

The repeal of Ghana’s criminal libel law in 2001 marked a significant milestone in the country’s democratic journey. Once used as a powerful tool to control the press, the law was inherited from the British colonial administration and entrenched in the 1960 Criminal Code, Act 29. For decades, it served as a chilling mechanism to intimidate and imprison journalists who dared to criticize public officials or expose the ills of society. But has its repeal truly absolved media practitioners of all legal obligations?

Understanding the Criminal Libel Law

Criminal libel, distinct from civil defamation, involved the prosecution of individuals—particularly journalists—for publishing material deemed injurious to the reputation of others. Under this law, truth was not always a defense. Journalists such as Kweku Baako Jnr., Haruna Attah, Eben Quarcoo, and George Naykene were prosecuted and jailed under successive governments, notably under the Rawlings-led administration.

The law was more than a legal framework—it was a tool of state control. It enabled powerful political actors to silence dissent, deter investigative journalism, and entrench fear within the media. In repealing the law, President John Agyekum Kufuor’s administration sought to empower journalists, promote transparency, and uphold Ghana’s democratic ideals.

Repeal: Gateway to freedom or free-for-all?

The repeal of the criminal libel law has undeniably expanded the frontiers of press freedom in Ghana. The media has flourished with increased diversity and plurality. Radio stations, newspapers, and online platforms such as Adom FM, Joy FM, The Insight, and The Globe have mushroomed across the country, offering varied perspectives on national issues.

Investigative journalism has gained ground, with exposés such as those by Anas Aremeyaw Anas shining a light on corruption, malpractice, and abuse of power. The liberalized environment allows journalists to report boldly without fear of state retribution—a key component of any thriving democracy.

However, this freedom has not come without cost.

The continued relevance of defamation law

While the repeal of the criminal libel law removed the threat of imprisonment, it did not eliminate the legal obligations of journalists. Defamation law, particularly in its civil form, remains robust. Plaintiffs can still sue media outlets and journalists for libel (written defamation) or slander (spoken defamation) if they believe false and damaging information has been published about them.

For instance, in E.T. Mensah v. Daily Guide, the former minister sought redress through civil court after allegedly defamatory content was published. Similarly, Edward Annan, CEO of the Masai Group, sued the Ghanaian Observer over false reports. In these cases, the court assesses whether:

• The statement is indeed defamatory;
• It was published to a third party;
• It was reasonably understood to refer to the plaintiff.

The essence of defamation law is to strike a balance between freedom of expression and protection of individual reputation. Therefore, despite the repeal of criminal libel, journalists are far from absolved of legal responsibility.

Contempt of Court: A persistent legal boundary

Media freedom also meets a hard stop at the door of contempt of court. This quasi-criminal offense is intended to protect the dignity and authority of the judiciary. Publishing materials that discredit court proceedings or defy judicial orders can lead to severe consequences.

A telling case is that of the Free Press columnist who in 1999 alleged that Supreme Court Justice I.K. Abban falsified a ruling. Though the claims were reportedly substantiated, the court found the article contemptuous, leading to a one-month jail term for the columnist and one day for the editor. This underscores that while journalists have the right to criticize, they must do so within the confines of respect for judicial integrity.

Media freedoms and their abuse: A double-edged sword

In the post-criminal libel era, media freedom has at times morphed into media lawlessness. Public discourse is increasingly tainted with insults, unsubstantiated allegations, and character assassinations. The airwaves and print media have become platforms for political vendettas, personal attacks, and sensationalism.

Some journalists have failed in their gatekeeping role, trading objective analysis for propaganda and misinformation. This has not only degraded the quality of public discourse but also eroded trust in the media.

Nonetheless, the legal framework still allows affected individuals to seek redress. Civil suits against publications such as Ghana Palaver, The Enquirer, and The Democrat by public figures are reminders that media actors are still answerable to the law.

Media responsibility: The path forward

The absence of criminal libel should not be interpreted as a license for irresponsibility. In fact, it places a higher moral and professional obligation on journalists to verify facts, exercise judgment, and respect the dignity of others. The role of the media in shaping public opinion, informing the citizenry, and holding power to account demands nothing less.

Journalists must also approach their work with critical analysis rather than mere sensationalism. As watchdogs of society, their power lies not just in exposure, but in accuracy and fairness.

Freedom with responsibility

The repeal of the criminal libel law was a monumental step in Ghana’s democratic evolution. It ushered in a liberal media environment where journalists could operate without fear of incarceration for merely doing their jobs. But it did not, and should not, mean freedom from accountability.

Defamation and contempt laws remain in place to check excesses and maintain societal order. The challenge, therefore, is for media practitioners to uphold the principles of truth, balance, and professionalism. In the end, a free press is not one that is unchecked, but one that checks itself—constantly and conscientiously.

“Media freedom is not a license to libel; it is a duty to inform with integrity.”