Proving contempt is less about passion and more about legal arithmetic. It is an exercise that is at once elementary and unforgivingly precise. A caution I give when advising people on avoiding contempt.

This morning I was in Court when news trickled in that Managing Editor of The Herald, Larry Alans Dogbey, had just been convicted of contempt and sentenced to one week in prison. My immediate, visceral reaction was one of sharp frustration and deep anger. The feelings naturally stem from my unwavering commitment to press freedom and my regular legal defense of journalists and media houses.

But I was quick to urge calm when friends and officers of the GJA brought this to my attention. I insisted, as I always do, that we must first obtain and examine the court’s formal order and the underlying judicial reasoning before rushing to public commentary.

I am still pushing to review the full ruling, but having now scrutinized the formal court filings that precipitated this conviction, the legal reality is stark. By the text of the processes filed before the High Court, Larry appears to have left the bench with virtually no choice but to uphold the application for contempt against him.

To understand why the court’s hand was forced, one must look at the explicit “sins” isolated by the applicant, Kevin Okyere, in his motion for committal:

* The weight of prior knowledge: The filings establish that Larry was never a passive bystander unaware of the legal sword hanging over him. He had actively participated in the substantive defamation suit and filed an affidavit in opposition to an interlocutory injunction, which was subsequently granted by His Lordship Justice John Bosco Nabarese on June 11, 2025.

The failure of avoidance: Even when personal service proved elusive, the law found its way. The court granted an order for substituted service, which was systematically executed. The injunction order and its accompanying, ominous Penal Notice were posted on the court’s notice board, published in the Ghanaian Times on October 20, 2025, and explicitly delivered directly to his known WhatsApp lines. He was a man fully, legally notified that he was restrained from publishing any material intended to tarnish the applicant’s reputation pending the trial – a case he is a defendant in.

The unabated publications: The structural core of the contempt application rests on what can only be described as a defiant chronicle of subsequent publications. Despite a clear judicial embargo, the applicant isolated a series of highly damaging headlines and articles published across late 2025 and early 2026:

◦ Exhibit G: An article asserting that a UK court had threatened Kevin Okyere with an arrest warrant over a $`29 million fraud charge.

◦ Exhibit G1: A front-page feature proclaiming, “Kevin Okyere returns with USD 94 million fraud albatross.”

◦ Exhibit G2 & G3: A deceptive layout ostensibly about a Ghanaian football star detained in Dubai, which instead prominently featured Kevin Okyere’s photograph with a headline declaring he had been granted a `$20 million bail in Dubai and barred from leaving the Emirates.

The legal Rubicon crossed

In our jurisprudence, a party cannot choose which orders of the court are worthy of compliance and which can be treated as mere suggestions. Yes, even wrong judgment, Ex parte Afoda teaches us must be obeyed until it has been set aside by a Court. The particulars of contempt specified that Dogbey’s actions amounted to a “wanton disregard” of judicial authority. The application forcefully argued that by publishing exactly what he had been prohibited from publishing, he, the respondent sent a calculated public message that he was not subject to the judicial processes of the state.

When a respondent faces an application detailing such explicit, chronological breaches of a subsisting court order, backed by verifiable proofs of service, the legal burden shifts heavily.

To fail to punish such open non-compliance would be an invitation to judicial anarchy, undermining the very dignity of the courts that protect us all. But even before I see the full decision, I wish there was mitigation for a monetary fine, a caution, a bond or a combination of these forms of punishment instead of jail. The appellate processes may be triggered if Larry feels he has a compelling defence that was ignored.

Contempt of court

People can go to jail for several months for contempt of court, and that is why the crusade for Defamation and Contempt Act must be revived.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law (2014) defines contempt as “[w]illful disobedience or open disrespect of the orders, authority, or dignity of a court or a judge acting in a judicial capacity by disruptive language or conduct or by failure to obey the court’s orders.”

Article 19 (12) of the 1992 Constitution empowers the superior courts in these terms “…clause (11) of this article shall not prevent a superior court from punishing for contempt of itself notwithstanding that the act or omission constituting contempt is not defined in a written law and the penalty is not so prescribed.”

Then Article 126(2) explains that “[t]he Superior Courts shall be superior courts of record and shall have the power to commit for contempt to themselves and all such powers as were vested in a court of record immediately before the coming into force of this Constitution.”

These provisions preserve the inherent power of superior courts to punish for contempt even if not codified in statute.

By Section 61 of the Courts Act (Act 459) contempt by a witness’ failure, inter alia, to attend court, may attract a fine not exceeding 50 penalty units or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both.

Recently at the World Press Freedom Day event, GJA President Albert Dwumfour expressed worry about growing defamation suits against journalists and media houses. He had a list of 15 suits; I am defending 13 of them. Many are nuisance SLAPP suits. A Defamation Act must contain anti-SLAPP provisions to check the abuse by the wealthy.

I remain a fiercely loyal crusader for the free press. But our shield is the law, and that shield loses its armor when we treat the explicit, unambiguous orders of a judge with casual indifference. The court filings I have reviewed reveal a textbook path to a contempt conviction – one where the court was left with no option but to assert its institutional authority.

Let us report with courage, but let us navigate the courts with absolute diligence.