…as Journalist Appeals Justice Brews ‘Sick’ Ruling
A High Court judgment weaponising data protection laws against investigative journalism is being challenged. The outcome will define the limits of accountability in Ghana.
A legal battle with profound implications for press freedom, civil society, and political accountability is moving to Ghana’s Court of Appeal. Freelance journalist Innocent Samuel Appiah has filed an appeal against a controversial 7 November 2025 High Court ruling by Justice Nana Brew.
The judgment, which found Appiah violated the Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843) in his reporting on Cynthia Adjei, is seen by legal experts as a dangerous precedent that could allow powerful figures to evade scrutiny by citing privacy.
Justice Brew’s ruling from Human Rights Division 2 is being contested as a fundamental misreading of the law. Appiah’s lawyers, Michael Youri of Kpatsa & Associates, argue in their appeal notice that the court erroneously created an “absolute prohibition” on publishing personal data, even for matters of legitimate public interest.
This interpretation, if upheld, would effectively neuter investigative journalism and anti-corruption work by allowing subjects to sue for any disclosure of their personal information.
Beyond the legal philosophy, the appeal reveals startling procedural shortcomings in the original case. Court documents indicate that the applicant, Cynthia Adjei, represented by Bobby Banson of Robert Smith Law Group, failed to specify in her pleadings how her privacy was violated a basic requirement in civil litigation. More critically, Appiah’s appeal asserts that Adjei “led no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that her privacy was violated.”
This raises serious questions about the evidential basis for Justice Brew’s ruling. Legal sources suggest the judgment appears to assume that the mere act of publishing personal information, regardless of context or public interest, constitutes a violation per se.
This disregards the balancing test common in data protection regimes worldwide, including the European Union’s GDPR, which permits processing for journalistic purposes.
This case is not happening in a vacuum. It follows a growing trend across the continent where powerful actors use broad laws cybercrime, anti-defamation, and now data protection to litigate against critics.
The timing is significant. With Ghana’s political landscape heating up, a ruling that successfully chills investigative reporting would be a major victory for those preferring opacity.
The involvement of the Attorney General as a respondent adds a political dimension. The state’s tepid defence of the public interest in the lower court has raised eyebrows.
Will the Attorney General’s department now robustly defend a balanced interpretation of the law, or will it allow a judgment that restricts scrutiny of both private and public figures to stand? Its stance in the appeal will be closely watched as a signal of the government’s commitment to transparency.
Media and civil society organizations are deeply alarmed. The ruling provides a ready-made legal toolkit for anyone wishing to suppress unfavourable stories. For resource-strapped independent journalists and NGOs, the cost and risk of defending against such suits could be paralysing.
The appeal, filed on 12 January 2026, now shifts the fight to a higher court. The Court of Appeal has the chance to correct what many see as a judicial overreach and reaffirm that privacy rights cannot be absolute in a functioning democracy.
It must decide whether Ghana’s Data Protection Act was intended to be a shield for personal information abuse or a sword against public accountability.
The outcome will resonate far beyond this single case. It will either secure a vital space for accountability journalism or sanction its erosion under the guise of data privacy. For Ghana’s democratic health, the stakes could not be higher.