The Chief Justice, Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, has cautioned journalists against turning court cases into media trials.
He explained that although the media have a legitimate role in scrutinising the judiciary and reporting on court proceedings, journalists must respect the constitutional presumption of innocence and avoid coverage that prejudges the guilt of accused persons.
“A person accused of an offence remains innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction,” he said.
A person is arrested in the morning.
By noon, their photograph is everywhere.
By evening, a verdict has been delivered online.
Comments declare: “He is a thief.” “She is guilty.”
“They should jail him for life.”
No evidence has been heard. No witness has been cross-examined.
No defence has been offered.
But in the court of public opinion, the case is closed.
That is a media trial.
And it is dangerous for everyone — for the accused, for the victim, for the judge, and for the public’s trust in justice itself.
Reporting on cases before the courts requires particular care.
Media coverage should not seek to influence the outcome of proceedings or create public conclusions before the courts have examined the evidence.
When the media declares a person guilty before trial, it does two harms at once.
First, it harms the accused.
Even if the court later acquits them, the stain remains.
In Ghana, as elsewhere, a person acquitted after a media trial often finds that society does not acquit them.
Their name is still associated with the charge on Google.
Their business suffers.
Their family suffers.
The presumption of innocence is not a technicality. It is a protection for every citizen, including those of us who have never been in a dock but could one day be.
Second, it harms the justice system itself.
A judge who must decide a high-profile case under intense media pressure is placed in an impossible position.
If the judge acquits, the public says the judge was bribed.
If the judge convicts, the public says the judge bowed to pressure. In either case, confidence in the courts is damaged.
This is why Justice Baffoe-Bonnie drew a clear distinction that journalists must understand and respect.
The media must be free to criticise a judgment.
If a judge gives a sentence that seems too lenient, journalists can say so, with reasons.
If a court delays a case for years, journalists can investigate and expose it.
If a judgment contains errors of law, journalists can quote lawyers who explain those errors.
That is legitimate scrutiny.
That is the media doing its constitutional job.
What is not legitimate is a campaign to intimidate a judge.
It is not legitimate to publish the home address of a judge, to threaten a judge’s family, to organise a demonstration outside a court to demand a particular verdict, or to run a week-long series designed to force a conviction.
Justice emanates from the people, as Article 125 of the 1992 Constitution provides, but it is administered in their name and on their behalf by an independent judiciary.
That independence is not a privilege for judges, as the Chief Justice reminded us. It is a safeguard for citizens, ensuring that their rights and obligations are determined without fear, favour or improper influence.
If we allow public opinion — however loud, however angry, however well-intentioned — to replace judicial determination, we will not get more justice.
We will get mob justice, dressed up as journalism.
That is why the Chief Justice’s other message on Saturday is inseparable from his caution.
And what should the judiciary do? It must remain open to legitimate scrutiny without compromising its independence.
That means courts should make judgments available promptly.
It means the Judicial Service should explain, in plain language, why cases are delayed. It means judges should not hide behind contempt powers to silence fair criticism.
Justice Baffoe-Bonnie’s warning should not be read as an attempt to muzzle the press.
It should be read as an invitation to the press to be better — more accurate, more fair, more careful — so that its freedom is defended not just by the Constitution, but by its own credibility.
The courtroom is where guilt is decided.
The newsroom is where the public is informed about how that decision is made.
Let us not confuse the two.
If we allow media trials to replace real trials, we will all be less safe.
Today it is a politician or a businessman in the dock.
Tomorrow it could be any of us.
The presumption of innocence is not for the guilty.
It is for all of us.
