The High Court in Accra has granted Larry Alans-Dogbey, Editor of the Herald newspaper, bail pending the determination of his appeal against a contempt of court conviction that saw him sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment.
Justice Isaac Addo, presiding over the General Jurisdiction 4 Division of the High Court, granted the application on Friday, July 17, 2026, in Suit No. GJ/0199/2025. Alans-Dogbey is to remain on the same bail terms earlier granted him on June 26, 2026 — GHS100,000 with two sureties — pending the outcome of his appeal.
Counsel for Alans-Dogbey, Peter Okudzeto, appearing alongside Eli Ahu and Stanley Boye-Quaye, told the court that the bail application had been filed on July 6 and served on the respondent on July 9, but that no opposing process had been filed in response.
Counsel for the respondent, Sean K. Poku, was absent when the matter was called. The application was granted on the strength of the motion paper, supporting affidavit and annexures before the court.
Background to the conviction
Alans-Dogbey was convicted of contempt on June 25, 2026, after Justice Addo found him to have breached an interlocutory injunction issued in connection with a civil suit brought by businessman Kevin Okyere and Springfield Exploration and Production Limited. Alans-Dogbey is the second defendant in that underlying suit.
The injunction, issued in June 2025, had barred him from publishing statements deemed “intended to undermine and tarnish” Okyere’s reputation.
Grounds of appeal
In a Notice of Appeal filed July 1, Alans-Dogbey’s lawyers raised 13 grounds challenging both the conviction and the sentence, framing the case as one with significant press freedom implications under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
Central to the appeal is the argument that the injunction itself was constitutionally flawed. The defence contends the order amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on free expression, since it prohibited publication before any court had ruled on whether the underlying statements were even defamatory.
The appeal further notes that the judge who issued the injunction had explicitly said he was not ruling on the merits of the defamation claim — yet the order’s effect, the defence argues, was to do exactly that.
The appeal also challenges the injunction on grounds of vagueness, pointing to Justice Addo’s own acknowledgment during the contempt judgment that the wording of the order was unclear.
Alans-Dogbey’s lawyers argue a person cannot lawfully be jailed for breaching an order that even the court enforcing it admits is ambiguous.
The defence further argues that the trial judge wrongly inferred malicious intent from the mere act of publication, ignoring what they describe as overwhelming evidence of good faith. According to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, the court did not adequately weigh Alan’s-Dogbey’s 20-year career as a journalist, the public interest nature of his reporting, or his reliance on official documentation, including material from the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), a Ministry of Energy letter, and UK court records.
The appeal also draws a distinction between Alans-Dogbey’s case and the Montie 3 contempt matter, which the trial court had relied on in sentencing. The defence argues the two cases are not comparable: whereas the Montie 3 contemnors were found to have directly scandalised the judiciary and threatened judges, Alans-Dogbey’s reporting concerned matters of public interest involving a businessman and state assets, sourced from verifiable official records.
Another ground concerns the manner in which Alans-Dogbey claims he was served with the original court papers. His lawyers allege that a WhatsApp screenshot presented as proof of service was fabricated, and that Alans-Dogbey never knew the individual named as the sender nor owned the phone number associated with the message. If proven, the defence argues this would amount to a fraud on the court.
The appeal notes that Alans-Dogbey’s publications followed a Supreme Court ruling in a related matter, Stena Unicon Offshore Services Ghana Limited v. Springfield Exploration and Production Limited, decided in February 2026, and argues that Okyere, as a businessman involved in state oil and gas assets, is a public figure subject to heightened scrutiny.
Alans-Dogbey’s lawyers are asking the Court of Appeal to quash the conviction and sentence entirely and declare the original injunction void, or, failing that, to substitute the custodial sentence with a non-custodial penalty.
Okyere and Springfield Exploration and Production Limited have not yet publicly responded to the claims raised in the appeal. With bail now granted, Alans-Dogbey remains at liberty while the matter proceeds before the Court of Appeal in Accra.
