TOMMY THOMPSON BOOKS LTD AND OTHERS v THE REPUBLIC
May 30, 1996
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
- SAPONG
- ESSILFIE-BONDZIE
- BENIN JJA
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Media Law
May 30, 1996
COURT OF APPEAL
GHANA
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This second appeal arose from criminal libel charges laid against Tommy Thompson Books Ltd, its director Tommy Thompson, and Free Press editor Eben Quarcoo for articles about Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings, Ghana’s First Lady. After the Circuit Court overruled a preliminary objection that only public officers could complain under section 112(2) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29), and the High Court (Apaloo J) dismissed an appeal, the appellants renewed the argument in the Court of Appeal. Benin JA, writing for the court, held that Act 29’s text uses “person” broadly and, guided by the Interpretation Act (CA 4) and Act 29’s construction rules, interpreted section 114(1) disjunctively. He concluded criminal libel is available to any individual, not restricted to public officers, and that headings do not limit statutory scope. Essilfie‑Bondzie JA concurred and Sapong JA agreed. The appeal was dismissed and the trial ordered to proceed.
JUDGMENT OF BENIN JA.
The only issue raised in this appeal is whether a person who is not a public officer can lay a criminal complaint under section 112(2) of the Criminal Code, 1960 (Act 29).
The facts giving rise to the appeal are not in dispute. Briefly they are as follows: The appellants are all in one way or the other connected to the newspaper called the Free Press. They are alleged to have published certain libelous material concerning Nana Konadu Agyeman Rawlings, the first lady of the Republic of Ghana. The appellants were accordingly charged with two counts of intentional libel under section 112(2) of Act 29. They were put before the Circuit Court, Accra.
A preliminary point was raised that since the complainant is not a public officer, she could not lay a complaint under this section. The circuit court dismissed this argument. An appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. This is therefore a second appeal against the dismissal of the same point. It is not in dispute that the complainant is not a public officer; hence the issue raised in the courts below and in this court also as to whether non-public officers are covered by this provision.
Learned counsel for the appellants, Nana Akufo-Addo, submitted that this is an offence of a public nature. That explains why in our case law there is no example of any prosecution by a non-public officer. The cases in question as set out are these: R v Frimpong [1959] GLR 287; State v Ahmad [1961] GLR 96 and Gyimah v The Republic [1971] 2 GLR 147, CA. Also see an earlier proceedings in the same case under the title Republic v Mensah-Gyimah, High Court, 2 August 1969, unreported; digested in (1969) CC 150 and Badu v The Republic [1974] 2 GLR 361. Also referred to is the circuit court case of Republic v Naykene, Circuit Court, Accra, June 1992, unreported. Counsel said the fact that all these prosecutions under this legislation were initiated by public officers is a true reflection of the ambit and scope of this legislation. Counsel said libel against non-public officers can be remedied in civil proceedings. He said further that the view taken by the circuit court and the High Court that every libelous publication is protected under this legislation is untenable. He referred to the book by Robertson, Media Law (3rd ed) at p 100 on the origin of this law which was meant or designed to prevent loss of confidence in the sovereign government and that the same principle has been translated in