Anyone who has walked into a busy Ghanaian courtroom lately may have noticed a new feature of the scene: bloggers, phones raised, filming hearings and racing to turn the drama into content for Facebook, TikTok, YouTube and other platforms. Their growing presence has divided public opinion. Some Ghanaians see a useful new form of public information. Others complain that the crowds have become a nuisance at the courts.
So what does the law say? Ghanaian law does not specifically bar bloggers from sitting in on court proceedings or reporting on cases. Trouble starts when their behaviour gets in the way of the court’s work. A blogger who obstructs proceedings, interferes with the administration of justice, defies a court order or otherwise commits contempt of court can face legal consequences.
Below is a breakdown of the legal principles that apply.
- What the 1992 Constitution Says
Two provisions of the Constitution matter most here.
Article 126(2): The Power to Punish Contempt
Article 126(2) empowers the Superior Courts of Judicature to punish contempt of court. That power is not limited to lawyers or litigants. It can reach bloggers, journalists, social media commentators and ordinary citizens. Being a party to a case is not a precondition for being found in contempt.
A blogger could therefore face contempt proceedings for deliberately obstructing justice, or for publishing remarks that unfairly prejudice a trial still before the court. Ghanaian judicial decisions have repeatedly recognised the courts’ authority in this area.
Article 126(3): Open Court
Article 126(3) is the source of the principle that court proceedings should, as a general rule, be held in public, subject to lawful exceptions. In practice, this means members of the public and media practitioners can usually attend hearings. That access is not unlimited, though. A court may limit it where the Constitution allows, for example to protect public safety, public order or public morality.
The upshot is that a blogger sitting in a courtroom is not, on that fact alone, committing any offence.
- Can Bloggers Be Punished for “Hijacking” Proceedings?
The answer depends entirely on what they actually do. Here is how different kinds of conduct are likely to be treated:
• Attends court to follow and report on a case, generally lawful, subject to court rules and any restrictions.
• Publishes an accurate account of public proceedings.
• Shouts, disrupts the hearing or ignores lawful directions from the bench, which could amount to contempt of court.
• Publishes material meant or likely to prejudice a pending trial which may raise contempt issues, depending on the circumstances.
• Threatens witnesses or tries to sway testimony which could amount to contempt or other offences, depending on the facts.
• Disobeys a court order which may lead to contempt proceedings if the legal requirements are met.
• Criticises a judge or questions a decision.
Ghanaian courts accept that both conduct and publications can amount to contempt if they interfere with the administration of justice. Even so, a court must look at the specific circumstances and the legal basis of the allegation before reaching that conclusion.
- Is It Illegal for Bloggers to “Flood” the Courts?
This is a point worth getting right. No general rule makes it unlawful for many bloggers to show up at the same hearing. Large numbers alone are not an offence.
Ghana Has A Lot More Courts Without Judges, Which Is A Major Challenge
The picture changes if the crowd or its behaviour disrupts the hearing, blocks access or interferes with the proper running of the case. In that situation, the court can take appropriate steps within its lawful authority. A judge may enforce courtroom rules, keep order and, where necessary, impose lawful limits on access.
The question, then, is not how many bloggers are present. It is whether their conduct breaks the applicable rules or interferes with the administration of justice.
- When Court Cases Become Social Media Entertainment
Bloggers are not automatically barred from discussing court cases on Facebook, TikTok, YouTube or elsewhere. They do need to be aware that what they publish carries legal risk.
Consider a blogger who presents an accused person as guilty before the court has ruled. That kind of content raises concerns about the presumption of innocence and the fairness of the trial. Likewise, content deliberately made to intimidate witnesses, influence a pending case or undermine the administration of justice could expose its publisher to legal consequences.
Two constitutional provisions need to be read together here. Article 19 protects key fair-trial rights, and Article 126(2) preserves the courts’ power to punish contempt. Both have to be weighed alongside other applicable laws and the facts of each case.
Freedom of expression and the public’s interest in knowing what happens in court are real and important. But they do not give anyone a free pass to interfere with judicial proceedings.
- Can Judges Stop Bloggers from Entering Court?
Courts have the authority to maintain order and regulate their own proceedings. Depending on the circumstances, a judge may impose restrictions to make sure hearings run properly and justice is not compromised.
It would be wrong, however, to conclude that judges can automatically ban bloggers just because they are bloggers, or because their coverage draws a lot of attention. Any restriction has to be justified in light of the Constitution, other applicable laws, court rules and the specific circumstances that call for it.
Ghanaian law strikes a balance. It recognises the public’s right to observe court proceedings while also protecting the authority of the courts and the integrity of the justice system.
The real dividing line is between reporting on justice and interfering with justice. Bloggers who attend court and comment on cases are not breaking the law by doing so. Those who disrupt hearings, pressure witnesses, defy orders or prejudge cases put themselves at real legal risk.
Some people have called for bloggers to be kept out of the courts altogether. Are those calls justified, or does the answer lie in better enforcement of existing rules against the few who abuse the privilege?