Oliver Barker questions legality of jail sentence for Larry Dogbe in Okyere contempt case

Oliver Barker-Vormawor[left] and Larry Dogbe

Legal practitioner and social activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor has raised concerns over the seven-day jail sentence handed to Managing Editor of The Herald Newspaper, Larry Dogbe, following a contempt ruling by the Accra High Court.

The sentence was delivered on Thursday, June 25 by Justice Isaac Addo in a case involving businessman Kevin Okyere and Swiss commodity trading firm Petraco SA.

The conviction stems from a contempt application in which Mr. Okyere accused the journalist of publishing material allegedly in breach of a court injunction restraining publications considered harmful to his reputation.

Reacting in a social media post on the same day, Barker-Vormawor expressed surprise at the development and questioned the legal basis for such restrictions on publication.

"I didn't even know something like that was possible," he wrote.

He argued that the journalist had published what he described as factual information relating to ongoing legal and investigative processes involving Mr. Okyere.

Barker-Vormawor said the reports in question were not false and questioned why they should attract a custodial sentence.

"The news was not false. The news is true. Yet he has been jailed," he stated.

Meanwhile, the the application alleged that Mr. Dogbe and his media outlet violated an existing injunction restraining them from publishing statements capable of undermining Mr. Okyere’s reputation pending the determination of the substantive case.

Court filings indicated that the injunction barred publications deemed damaging to Mr. Okyere’s standing in the petroleum industry and broader business community.

Mr. Dogbe, however, had challenged the contempt claims, arguing that he had no prior knowledge of the injunction at the time of publication and disputing the basis of some of the evidence presented.

The court was required to determine whether a valid order existed, whether the respondent had notice of it, and whether there had been a wilful breach.

   Comments1