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 resulted in a seven-day prison sentence.
Justice Isaac Addo, sitting in 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 conditions previously imposed on June 26, 2026 — a GHS100,000 bail with two sureties — until the Court of Appeal determines his challenge to the conviction and sentence.
Counsel for Alans-Dogbey, Peter Okudzeto, who appeared with Eli Ahu and Stanley Boye-Quaye, informed the court that the application for bail pending appeal was filed on July 6 and served on the respondent on July 9. He noted that no affidavit in opposition or other response had been filed.
Counsel for the respondent, Sean K. Poku, was absent when the matter was called. The court subsequently granted the application based on the motion paper, supporting affidavit and accompanying exhibits.
Background
Alans-Dogbey was convicted of contempt on June 25, 2026, after Justice Addo found that he had breached an interlocutory injunction issued in connection with a civil suit brought by businessman Kevin Okyere and Springfield Exploration and Production Limited. The Herald editor is the second defendant in the substantive suit.
The injunction, issued in June 2025, restrained him from publishing statements deemed to be intended to undermine or tarnish Okyere’s reputation.
In a Notice of Appeal filed on July 1, Alans-Dogbey’s legal team raised 13 grounds challenging both the conviction and the custodial sentence, arguing that the case raises significant constitutional questions concerning press freedom and freedom of expression under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
Central to the appeal is the contention that the injunction amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech because it prohibited publication before any court had determined whether the underlying statements were defamatory.
The lawyers further argue that the judge who issued the injunction expressly stated that he was not deciding the merits of the defamation action, yet the order effectively restricted publication as though liability had already been established.
Another key ground of appeal challenges the clarity of the injunction itself. The defence points to Justice Addo’s acknowledgment during the contempt proceedings that aspects of the order were unclear, arguing that a person cannot lawfully be imprisoned for violating an order whose terms are ambiguous.
The appeal also contests the trial court’s finding of malicious intent, maintaining that Alans-Dogbey acted in good faith as a journalist reporting on matters of public interest. According to the supporting affidavit, the court failed to adequately consider his more than two decades in journalism, the public interest nature of his reporting, and his reliance on official documents, including material from the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), a Ministry of Energy letter and records from proceedings in the United Kingdom.
The defence also argues that the trial court wrongly relied on the Montie 3 contempt case during sentencing, insisting the two matters are fundamentally different. While the Montie 3 case involved statements found to scandalise the judiciary and threaten judges, Alans-Dogbey’s publications related to a businessman and issues concerning state oil and gas assets, based on what the defence describes as verifiable official records.
In addition, the appeal raises questions over the service of the original court processes. The defence alleges that a WhatsApp screenshot presented as evidence of service was fabricated, claiming Alans-Dogbey neither knew the purported sender nor owned the telephone number associated with the message. If established, the lawyers argue, the alleged fabrication would constitute a fraud on the court.
The appeal further notes that the publications in question were made after the Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision in Stena Unicon Offshore Services Ghana Limited v. Springfield Exploration and Production Limited. It also argues that Okyere, as a businessman involved in state oil and gas assets, is a public figure who is subject to greater public scrutiny.
Alans-Dogbey is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside both the contempt conviction and the seven-day custodial sentence, declare the underlying injunction void, or alternatively substitute the prison term with a non-custodial punishment.
Kevin Okyere and Springfield Exploration and Production Limited have not publicly responded to the allegations contained in the appeal.
With the High Court having granted bail pending appeal, Alans-Dogbey will remain at liberty while the Court of Appeal considers the merits of the case.
