The High Court in Accra on Friday, 17 July 2026, granted Larry Dogbey, Managing Editor of The Herald newspaper, bail pending the determination of his appeal against a seven-day prison sentence imposed for contempt of court, after Kevin Okyere and his legal team failed to appear to oppose the application.
Neither Mr Okyere nor his lawyers Sean Poku, Nana Boakye Mensah-Bonsu and Prince Noel Danquah of Sory & Partners were present when the application was called before Justice Isaac Addo.
Mr Dogbey was represented by Peter Okudzeto, Eli Ahu and Stanley Boye-Quaye.
Moving the application, lead counsel Mr Okudzeto informed the court that the motion for bail pending appeal had been filed on 6 July and served on the respondent on 9 July 2026.
He told the court that neither Mr Okyere nor his lawyers had filed any affidavit in opposition or other process challenging the application.
“On the 6th of July, we filed this application, and on the 9th of July 2026, it was served on the respondent. We have not been served with any process. We presume that they are not opposed to the application.
“We move in terms of the motion paper, supporting affidavit and all the annexures.”
Justice Addo subsequently granted the application, ordering that Mr Dogbey should remain on the bail terms earlier granted on 26 June 2026, a GH¢100,000 bond with two sureties.
“The application for bail pending appeal is granted. The applicant is granted bail pending the determination of his appeal, and he is to remain on his former bail granted him on the 26th day of June 2026, namely GH¢100,000 with two sureties,” the judge ruled.
Mr Dogbey was convicted after the court found that he had breached an interlocutory injunction issued by Justice John Bosco Nabarese, now a Justice of the Court of Appeal, restraining the defendants from publishing statements intended to “undermine and tarnish the plaintiffs’ reputation within society, the petroleum industry and as businessmen” pending the determination of a defamation suit.
The contempt conviction arose from The Herald’s publication of a petition submitted by Switzerland-based Petraco Oil Company SA alleging fraud exceeding US$90 million against Kevin Okyere, Geena Malkani Punjabi and Emmanuel Ansah Bernasko.
Mr Dogbey has maintained that the Petraco petition, dated 16 May 2025, was entirely distinct from the defamation action commenced in November 2024.
The petition has been submitted to several state institutions, including the Criminal Investigations Department, the Attorney-General, the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), the Financial Intelligence Centre, the Petroleum Commission, the National Petroleum Authority and the Bulk Oil Storage and Transportation Company. The allegations remain under investigation by Ghanaian authorities.
Mr Dogbey’s lawyers have mounted a sweeping constitutional challenge to his contempt conviction, arguing that his seven-day prison sentence threatens press freedom and should be suspended pending the determination of his appeal.
They asked the High Court in Accra to grant him bail pending ahead of his appeal, arguing that he would complete his seven-day prison sentence before the appeal could be heard, thereby rendering the appeal nugatory.
In an affidavit filed in support of the bail application, Mr Dogbey contends that the inevitable delay in preparing the record of appeal and securing a hearing date means he would have served the entire sentence imposed on him for contempt of court before the appellate court has the opportunity to determine the merits of his case.
According to the affidavit, Ghanaian courts have consistently held that bail pending appeal may be granted where a substantial part, or the entirety, of a sentence is likely to be served before an appeal is heard. The application argues that this principle is particularly applicable to short custodial sentences such as the seven-day term imposed on the journalist.
The affidavit further submits that the appeal raises substantial constitutional and legal questions concerning freedom of expression and media freedom under Articles 162 and 165 of the 1992 Constitution. Counsel argues that these issues constitute exceptional circumstances warranting the grant of bail pending appeal.
Mr Dogbey’s lawyers maintain that the conviction is prima facie erroneous both in law and in fact. They contend that the interlocutory injunction order upon which the contempt conviction was founded was vague and amounted to an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of expression. They further argue that refusing bail would occasion a miscarriage of justice because the appeal would effectively become academic once the sentence had been fully served.
The affidavit states that the governing principles for granting bail pending appeal are well established: such applications are granted only in exceptional circumstances, where an appeal is likely to be unduly delayed, or where the conviction appears to be prima facie wrong and raises substantial, non-frivolous grounds of appeal.
The lawyers argue that all these conditions have been satisfied.
They submit that the case is not an ordinary criminal appeal, but one involving fundamental constitutional questions concerning the rights of journalists to report on matters of public interest without being subjected to unconstitutional restraints.
According to the affidavit, the contempt proceedings arose from an interlocutory injunction restraining publications allegedly intended to “undermine and tarnish” businessman Kevin Okyere. Counsel argues that such an order is constitutionally defective because it restrains speech before any judicial determination that the publications are defamatory.
The affidavit further contends that the conviction stemmed from reporting based on official and credible sources, including a Supreme Court judgment, correspondence from the Petroleum Commission, letters from the Ministry of Energy, a petition submitted to the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), and documents from court proceedings in the United Kingdom.
Mr Okudzeto, argues that these materials demonstrate that the publications concerned matters of genuine public interest relating to Ghana’s petroleum sector and the management of state assets.
The affidavit also asserts that the trial judge erred by selectively inferring malicious intention from the fact of publication while disregarding evidence said to support the journalist’s good faith, including his more than 20 years’ experience in journalism, his reliance on official documents and the public interest nature of the reports.
The appeal further challenges what the lawyers describe as procedural irregularities, including the alleged admission of unauthenticated documentary evidence contrary to the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323), and the alleged defective service of the interlocutory injunction order.
Counsel also argues that the trial judge wrongly relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in the Montie 3 contempt case, contending that the circumstances are materially different. Whereas the Montie case involved threats against Supreme Court Justices and attacks on the administration of justice, Mr Dogbey’s case, they argue, concerns journalistic reporting based on official records and matters of public interest.
The affidavit further states that Kevin Okyere made several admissions during cross-examination, including that Springfield Exploration and Production Limited had obtained a US$50 million loan from Petraco Oil Company SA, that the company had defaulted on the facility, that a fraud petition had been lodged with EOCO, and that he had been detained by Dubai security authorities.
According to the application, these admissions support the factual basis of the publications and demonstrate that the reports were neither fabricated nor malicious.
The lawyers also contend that Mr Dogbey’s publications were corroborated by a Supreme Court judgment in Stena Unicon Offshore Services Ghana Limited v Springfield Exploration and Production Limited & Another, which affirmed that Springfield owed more than US$8 million, as well as official correspondence from the Petroleum Commission concerning the Afina-1X well.
The affidavit further refers to a petition submitted by Swiss-based Petraco Oil Company SA to EOCO alleging fraud involving more than US$90 million, and to a certified summons issued by Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London requiring Mr Okyere to answer fraud charges brought by Petraco. Counsel says these documents are relied upon not to establish criminal liability but to demonstrate that the publications were based on official and credible sources.
Mr Dogbey’s legal team further argues that imprisoning a journalist for reporting on official court decisions and public documents would have a chilling effect on press freedom and undermine the constitutional role of the media in Ghana’s democracy.
The affidavit states that the applicant has no previous criminal convictions, has always complied with court proceedings, has a fixed place of abode and poses no flight risk. It also notes that he has instructed new solicitors to handle the appeal and that his personal assistance is necessary to prepare the constitutional arguments and review the trial record.
Mr Dogbey undertakes to comply with any bail conditions imposed by the court, including surrendering his passport, providing suitable sureties, reporting periodically to the court registry and refraining from publishing further material concerning the respondent or the subject matter of the proceedings until the appeal is determined.
The application concludes that the interests of justice overwhelmingly favour the grant of bail pending appeal, arguing that the appeal enjoys a high prospect of success and raises constitutional issues extending beyond the applicant’s personal liberty to the protection of media freedom in Ghana.
