Ghana Independent Broadcasters Association Vrs Attorney General and Another [2017] GHASC 45 (3 November 2017)

Ghana Independent Broadcasters Association Vrs Attorney General and Another [2017] GHASC 45 (3 November 2017)

Regulations 3-12 and 22 of L.I. 2224 impose prior restraint and censorship on media content, requiring prior authorization from the National Media Commission, which is contrary to the constitutional guarantee of media freedom under Article 162(2) and constitutes unlawful control and direction over professional functions under Articles 167(d) and 173. No legal justification under Article 164 or enabling legislation was provided. The Commission lacks power to impose criminal sanctions by subsidiary legislation except as specifically allowed for registration of newspapers. The penal provisions are ultra vires and void. However, the setting of Standard Guidelines (Regulation 12) is within the...

Citation
[2017] GHASC 45
Parties
Plaintiff: Ghana Independent Broadcasters Association; 1st Defendant: Attorney General; 2nd Defendant: National Media Commission
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
3 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Petition allowed in part; impugned regulations struck down as unconstitutional.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Media Regulation, Censorship, Delegated Legislation, Criminal Sanctions
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Media Law Administrative Law Freedom of Expression Media Regulation Censorship Delegated Legislation Criminal Sanctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 19
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ghana Independent Broadcasters Association

Plaintiff

Attorney General

1st Defendant

National Media Commission

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was properly invoked.
  2. 2 Whether Regulations 3-12 and 22 of the National Media Commission (Content Standards) Regulations, 2015 (L.I. 2224) amount to censorship and are inconsistent with Article 162(2) of the 1992 Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the impugned regulations amount to control and direction over the professional functions of media operators contrary to Articles 162(4), 167(d), and 173 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

Regulations 3-12 and 22 of L.I. 2224 impose prior restraint and censorship on media content, requiring prior authorization from the National Media Commission, which is contrary to the constitutional guarantee of media freedom under Article 162(2) and constitutes unlawful control and direction over professional functions under Articles 167(d) and 173. No legal justification under Article 164 or enabling legislation was provided. The Commission lacks power to impose criminal sanctions by subsidiary legislation except as specifically allowed for registration of newspapers. The penal provisions are ultra vires and void. However, the setting of Standard Guidelines (Regulation 12) is within the...

Court Disposition

Petition allowed in part; impugned regulations struck down as unconstitutional.

Orders

  • Reliefs 1, 2, and 3 granted; Regulations 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12(5), and 22 of L.I. 2224 struck down as unconstitutional.
  • Relief 4 rejected except for sub-regulation 12(5), which is struck down.