Court allows pre-trial restriction to stand on media publication alleging citizenship fraud by Indian woman

Court orders Ghanaweb to pull down its publication alleging citizenship fraud by Indian woman even before defamation trial begins

A High Court in Accra has allowed a pre-trial restriction to stand, pending full trial, on an investigative news report alleging that Indian national, Niharika Handa used false identity documents and other fraudulent means to obtain a Ghanaian passport.

The presiding judge, Justice Adjenim-Boateng, declined to discharge the order, which was first issued in October 2025 at a hearing where the defendants’ counsel was absent due to an alleged medical emergency and was therefore unable to file an opposition to the restriction.

The court declined to afford counsel a second opportunity to be heard before the order was granted.

The court’s stated basis for allowing the restriction to continue is that permitting the story to remain accessible online would cause “irreparable damage” to the reputation of Niharika Handa ahead of the substantive hearing of her defamation claim against GhanaWeb.

The case stems from a report published in September 2025 by GhanaWeb, which alleged that Ms Niharika Handa had fled India to evade arrest in connection with fraud charges, and later acquired Ghanaian citizenship without meeting the minimum requirements.

The article further claimed she falsified her date of birth, defrauded business partners, and transferred large sums of money from a Ghanaian joint venture. Ms Niharika Handa denied the allegations.

While the court’s order focuses on the alleged reputational harm, new filings by the defendants in March 2026 have introduced a wide range of documentary material that appears to contradict key aspects of Niharika Handa’s claims.

Her own sworn affidavit filed on March 10, 2025, and other records from India, Ghana, the United Kingdom and Austria suggest that Niharika Handa used at least five different years of birth in different official documents. In 2025, while she gave written statements to Ghana courts stating that her DOB is 14-09-1961, in the same year her sworn affidavit notarized in UK, and presented to an Indian court states it to be 14-09-1965.

The court filings also present rulings from the New Delhi High Court, including a 2019 decision describing her as a “fraud mastermind” who had absconded to evade arrest, and a 2021 ruling which dismissed her attempts to challenge an arrest warrant. The documents appear to conflict with her assertion before the Ghanaian court that she was “never a fugitive.”

Another point of dispute concerns residency requirements for Ghanaian citizenship. According to the court documents, Niharika Handa claims she lived continuously in Ghana between 2017 and 2022, yet documents presented to the Indian court for bail proceedings indicate that she was in Dubai receiving medical treatment during part of that period. The New Delhi court further noted that medical records had been procured claiming a requirement of three years’ bed rest, a proposition it found inherently improbable, thereby casting serious doubt on its authenticity. The defendants contend that these material inconsistencies go to the core of the defamation claim and justified their prayer for the setting aside of the injunction.

The court filing also challenged Niharika Handa’s explanation that discrepancies in her date of birth were due to a clerical error. Documents presented as evidence by the defense team show at least five different birth years appearing across identity records and corporate filings.

Her divorce documents and affidavit state a completely different DOB of 14-09-1966 and there are also questions about her changing her son, Punar Vasu Handa’s DOB from 7th Feb to 7th Dec,1985. Lawyers for the defendants argue that the pattern suggests deliberate misrepresentations rather than administrative error.

The defendants in their attempt to set aside the interlocutory injunction, had contended that the public interest in the allegations, as well as fresh evidence placed before the court, justified lifting the restriction so the matter could be tested at trial without suppressing the underlying publication.

The High Court’s decision to maintain the injunction has drawn criticism from some journalists and civil society groups, who say it discourages investigative reporting.

The next court hearing is scheduled for April 14 for the main defamation trial. The hearing will require the court to weigh the defamation claim against the substantial body of documentary evidence now in the record.