The Editor of The Herald newspaper, Larry Dogbey, has filed an appeal at the Accra High Court seeking to overturn his conviction for contempt of court, arguing that the ruling was legally flawed, unconstitutional and posed a threat to press freedom and Ghana’s constitutional democracy.

The hearing is set for this Friday, July 17, 2026.

Dogbey was convicted on June 25, 2026, and sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment for contempt of court.

Three days later, on June 28, his lawyers filed an application for bail pending appeal, which was granted by the court on June 29.

According to the appeal, the defence argues that given the short custodial sentence, requiring Dogbey to serve the full term before the appeal was determined would have rendered the appeal ineffective and academic.

The appeal identifies several grounds on which the conviction is being challenged, including alleged errors of law, procedural irregularities and constitutional violations.

Central to the appeal is the argument that the interlocutory injunction forming the basis of the contempt proceedings was vague and amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression.

The lawyers contend that the injunction improperly restricted publication and conflicted with constitutional protections for media freedom.

They further point out that a Notice of Appeal challenging the interlocutory injunction itself remains pending before the courts, arguing that the validity of the order underpinning the contempt conviction has not yet been conclusively determined.

Dogbey’s legal team maintains that the publications in question are protected under Articles 162 and 165 of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantee freedom of expression and the independence of the media.

According to the lawyers, the appeal extends beyond the interests of an individual journalist and raises fundamental constitutional questions about the limits of judicial power, media freedom and the rule of law.

“This is not a mere appeal,” the lawyers argue, “but one that goes to the heart of Ghana’s constitutional democracy and freedom.”

The defence also argues that the case concerns the conviction and imprisonment of a journalist for reporting on decisions of the Supreme Court and other courts, making it a matter of significant public interest that warrants careful judicial scrutiny.

Another major ground of appeal challenges the trial judge’s finding of malicious intent.

The lawyers argue that the court wrongly inferred that Dogbey intended to “undermine and tarnish” the complainant’s reputation merely from the act of publication, without considering several relevant factors.

These include Dogbey’s more than 20 years of experience as a journalist, his good-faith belief in the accuracy of the publications, the public interest nature of the reports, his reliance on official and credible sources, and admissions allegedly made by the complainant during cross-examination concerning his detention in Dubai and the default of a US$50 million loan.

According to the appeal, the judge selectively applied the legal principle that intention may be inferred from proven facts while ignoring evidence that supported the journalist’s claim of acting responsibly and in good faith.

The appeal also challenges the evidential basis of the conviction, alleging that the court admitted and relied upon documents that had not been properly authenticated, contrary to principles of natural justice.

The lawyers maintain that the publications related to matters of substantial public interest involving Ghana’s oil and gas sector and state assets.

They argue that the reports were based on official correspondence from the Petroleum Commission, Ghana’s statutory regulator for the upstream petroleum industry, and therefore constituted public records that were admissible without the need for formal proof of authenticity.

In addition, the defence describes the seven-day custodial sentence as harsh and excessive, arguing that even if contempt had been established, a non-custodial sanction would have been a more proportionate response.

The legal team has also asked the court to direct that the Record of Appeal be transmitted within a specified period to facilitate the expeditious hearing of the case.

The appeal is expected to test the balance between the courts’ contempt jurisdiction and the constitutional guarantees of press freedom, freedom of expression and the public’s right to receive information on matters of national importance.