Defamation in the digital era: Social media and the emergence of cyber libel in Ghana

This paper explores the growing challenges of defamation in Ghana’s digital era, where social media platforms like WhatsApp, X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and YouTube have become conduits for cyber-libel and online abuse. Tracing Ghana’s defamation law from its common-law roots and customary principles, this paper examines how traditional tort principles of defamation are applied to the contemporary concept of cyber-libel. 

Comparative perspectives from different jurisdictions, including the Philippines and the United Arab Emirates, will demonstrate how other states have enacted cyber-specific statutes to combat this growing menace online. Additionally, certain key Ghanaian cases, namely, Ace Anan Ankomah v. Kevin Taylor, Rev. John Fordjour v. Stephen Cobbah (aka Adepa) and Yaw Korankye (aka Ampong), and Kojo Forex v. Bongo Ideas, will be analyzed to illustrate the courts’ approach to dealing with defamatory remarks made online.  This paper concludes with the need for a more robust and technology-specific framework to remedy cyber-libel. 

Introduction

Technology has permeated virtually every sector of Ghanaian society, most noticeably communication. The advent of social and other mass media have radically expanded the boundaries of communication. The widespread accessibility of technological devices like smartphones, laptops and tablets mean that information can be disseminated at a level and speed unmatched in human history. 

The development of the internet has also provided a platform for people to stay informed and converse on a variety of events, topics and even personalities. In the past, factors like distance and geography hindered communication, but now, since these barriers have been overcome, individuals are free to express their thoughts and ideas often without due regard for the potential drawbacks and consequences. Despite the advantages, an issue arises where these shared opinions come across as insulting, slanderous or defamatory.

Traditionally, defamatory remarks were either communicated through words spoken at public gatherings or through print materials such as newspapers and books. However, in a day and age where individuals communicate and access news through digital platforms, these spaces have become a hub for defamatory remarks masked as strong opinions. 

This marks a pertinent development in the law of defamation because freedom of speech must be protected whilst preventing the use of modern technology to defame people on social media.[1] More often than not, the targets of these unpleasant publications are famous personalities who have risen to the pinnacle of their profession and find themselves entangled with controversies linked to their disciplines. Therefore, in order to determine whether the current defamation legal framework is sufficient in the digital era of social media, this paper would trace and detail the law on defamation in Ghana in the first part. Next, it would discuss the emergence of cyber-libel in Ghana and other international jurisdictions. Then, it would analyze three recent cases where the court decided on defamation perpetrated on social media platforms. Finally, it would suggest recommendations to tie up any identified loose ends. 

Freedom of Speech and the Law on Defamation 

The 1992 Constitution of Ghana is a human rights constitution.[2] Since the decision in Re Akoto[3] under the 1960 Republican Constitution, subsequent constitutions have strived to uphold and safeguard fundamental human rights. As a result, every person within the boundaries of Ghana is entitled to a plethora of rights and freedoms including freedom of speech and expression.[4] Through this, censorship and other forms of communication restrictions are outlawed. However, the constitution, in a bid to achieve equilibrium, limits the enjoyment of this freedom by subjecting it to respect the rights and freedoms of others and for public interest.[5] 

It is for this reason that defamation as a tort seeks to shield people from statements that could damage their reputation or status within a society. The law grants individuals the right to freedom of speech[6]in addition to their rights to dignity[7] and privacy.[8]  Thus a balance must be struck to ensure that one person’s right to speech would not result in making unfounded statements which could lower the reputation of another person. Consequently, the tort of defamation came as a legal saviour propounded to offer protection by imposing liabilities on a tortfeasor responsible for making defamatory statements. 

Ghanaian jurisprudence recognizes two legal systems which protect a person’s reputation. These are;

1. The Customary Law System
2. The Common Law System

This is rooted in the fact that the Courts Act permits the courts to be guided by personal laws when determining the applicable laws in a given dispute. Personal laws denote the system of customary laws that govern a person. Additionally, where the person is not subject to any system of customary law, the common law will be the guide for the court.[9] Therefore, it can be inferred that defamation issues between Ghanaians can be resolved through the use of customary law once the plaintiff brings the action under customary law slander[10] and establishes that the customs apply to the defendant as well.[11] Nonetheless, the common law is generally used as the law applicable in tort actions in Ghana. Therefore, this paper will continue with emphasis on the common law rules on defamation. 

The Scope Of Defamation

The original position of the common law on defamation was that a statement would be deemed defamatory if it intended to expose the victim to hatred, contempt, or ridicule. This was established in the classic case of Parmiter v Coupland, where a series of libels were published against the claimant implying that he was a corrupt official. It was held in that case that a publication made without justification or lawful excuse which was calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt, or ridicule constituted libel.[12] 

Nevertheless, this definition was viewed as too narrow since it precluded other acts that could have had a defamatory effect on the claimant. In order to rectify this defect, the scope of defamation was widened by Lord Atkin through a test which identified defamation or defamatory remarks as statements that tended to lower the claimant’s status or position in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.[13] This test was propounded in Sim v Stretch, where it was held that the defendant’s telegram was not capable of having a defamatory meaning; hence the action was dismissed. The test sought to identify to what extent the defendant’s defamatory words reduced the claimant’s position or reputation within the community.[14]

Generally, to succeed in a defamatory action, the claimant must prove the following elements; [15] 

1. The words, gestures, or statements are defamatory in nature.
2. The defamatory words referred to the claimant; and
3. The defamatory words were published by the defendant to at least one person other than the claimant.  

These elements will be discussed in seriatim.

The words, gestures, or statements are defamatory in nature.

The defamatory statement which the defendant publishes must be injurious to the reputation of the claimant. It should cause a substantial number of citizens within a community or society to shun a person.[16] In establishing defamation, the ordinary and natural meaning of the words published must be capable of having a defamatory meaning. Ordinary and natural meaning denote an implication that a reasonable reader would arrive with general knowledge and not any special knowledge after reading the words or statement.[17] 

A person’s reputation is described as the estimation that a person is held in or the character that is imputed to a person by the people in the society where he resides.[18] Additionally, to fall under the scope of a right-thinking person, it must be shown that people would avoid the claimant as a result of the defamatory statement or that members of society would think less of the claimant because of the statement.[19]

Defamatory statements must generally be clear in their ordinary meaning, however, the law makes provision for indirect statements that can damage a person’s reputation. These are  known as innuendoes. Thus, where a statement implies a defamatory meaning beyond the normal and ordinary meaning of the word, it becomes an innuendo.[20] This places a responsibility on the claimant to prove the alleged alternative defamatory meaning.  Innuendoes appear in two forms. These are true innuendoes and false innuendoes. A true innuendo is a type of statement that has a defamatory effect due to the extrinsic facts known to the recipient of the statement. Whilst a false innuendo does not require intrinsic facts to impute a defamatory effect on the claimant. Rather, the words are defamatory in their ordinary meaning because of the injurious inference that an ordinary person would make based on them. It becomes an insinuation that can be inferred from reading the words alone.   

 The defamatory gestures, words, or statement referred to the claimant

The statement alleged to be defamatory must refer to the claimant. This means the defamatory statement must be understood by its readers to be directed at the claimant.[21] This does not necessarily mean that the claimant’s name should be expressly mentioned in the defamatory piece provided the statement would lead people to reasonably presume it referred to the claimant.[22] The defendant cannot plead an intention to refer to another person as a defence to an action brought against him. Therefore, if the defamatory statement is not accurate about one person but it happens to be accurate about another person who has the same name and description, that person may institute an action of defamation against the defendant even if he was unknown to the defendant at the time of publication.[23]

Publication of the defamatory statement (Libel and Slander )

Publication is established by making the defamatory statement known to another person apart from the person to whom it was written.[24] Publication to the claimant alone is generally not actionable because the law seeks to protect a claimant from having his reputation injured among other people and not injury to his estimation about himself.[25] Publication can also appear in different modes.

The modern law of tort draws a distinction between the torts of libel and slander. This distinction is based on the medium and manner through which the defamatory statement is communicated. If the defamatory statement is conveyed in a permanent form, then it is considered to be libel. However, if the statement is conveyed in a temporary form, it will be considered to be Slander. 

Libel is generally effected through publications such as writings, newspapers and books which cause members of the society to think less of an individual. The permanence of the defamatory statement in these forms imply an intentional attempt by the defendant to injure the reputation of the claimant. A defamatory communication in the form of a caricature or effigy among others may amount to libel. This is due to the permanent nature of such communication.[26]

Slander on the other hand is more short-lived than libel because of the brief medium that it appears in. It is generally communicated through speech and gestures. Thus, slander is generally regarded as spoken defamation. Customary law also recognizes slander in the form of  words which cause any injury to the reputation of another by imputing witchcraft, adultery and crime among others.[27] Unlike the common law, customary law perceives slander to be actionable per se. In the case of Serwah v Sefa, the defendant was held liable for slander in customary law for bringing the claimant into disrepute by referring to her as a “ fool, a mad and crazy woman.[28]

Cyber-Libel

Cyber-Libel is a developing area of law that emerged from the fusion of traditional defamation principles with modern digital communication.[29] Even though it has received judicial recognition in our local legal sphere,[30] the limited Ghanaian jurisprudence on it means a comparative assessment from different jurisdictions would be required to provide deeper appreciation for it. 

Text writers describe it as any behaviour by which information about a person is published using a digital system set up by an e-mail address or phone number, where members may create pages and groups and add comments and posts, or upload content or pictures to their pages, and post or react in the form of pictures, videos, voice messages or written chat. If this publication harms the victim’s reputation, destroys confidence in them, or changes the impression of them, it amounts to cyber-libel.[31]

Therefore, the need to protect the reputation of various personalities on the digital scene compelled lawmakers to extend traditional defamation law, which was largely restricted to print media to cover information published on the internet and other telecommunications networks.

In the Philippines, libel committed through a computer system is a punishable offence.[32] This development underscored a series of actions taken by their government to combat illegal cyberspace activities. The landmark consolidated case of Disini v Secretary of Justice[33] upheld that certain provisions of Filipino law which penalized online libel were constitutional to the extent that the original author of a defamatory post would be held accountable but individuals who merely liked or commented on that  post would not be held liable for cyber-libel.

Furthermore, academics in the United Arab Emirates, a country with a robust legal framework for cybercrimes,[34] argue that cyber libel is a crime based on two pillars. The material pillar which underscores causation, consequence and the act of publishing defamatory content online and the moral pillar, which looks at the will and intent of the wrongdoer to publicise such content.[35] Whilst Ghana has a plethora of laws governing digital interactions,[36] The courts still heavily rely on the traditional laws of defamation in deciding whether a person would be tortiously liable for these wrongs. This section examines how the courts have applied the principles of defamation to cases arising from statements made on social media.

1. Judicial Approach  To Online Defamation
2. Ace Anan Ankomah v Kevin Ekow Baidoo Taylor[37] 

The learned High Court judge, His Lordship Justice Kweku T. Ackaah-Boafo, used this case to elaborate on the misuse of the internet to insult and tarnish the reputation of individuals. The plaintiff, a well-known and highly respected member of the legal profession, brought this action against the defendants for some statements made in a promotional video that was published and circulated on facebook and youtube. This video was filled with injurious statements about the plaintiff, which inter alia accused him of committing treason, engaging in criminal and illegal activities and perpetrating unprofessional or unethical conduct. In response, the plaintiff contended that the first defendant was an internet personality who gained notoriety by regularly releasing videos which contained insults and falsehoods targeted at prominent Ghanaians. 

In establishing his case, the plaintiff first proved the merits of his hard earned reputation in the legal space both locally and abroad and thereafter proved the effect of the video on his reputation. This was demonstrated by providing the damaging and insulting comments that ‘netizens’ were making upon viewing the video.[38] Upon consideration of this evidence, the court rightly held that the statements were defamatory to his reputation in Ghana and ordered the defendants to pay compensation, retract the video posted and issue a public apology to the plaintiff. 

This case is integral to our discussion because it touched on some aspects relating to cyber- libel. First, this case recognizes it as an activity that people can easily undertake by spreading unsubstantiated and harmful claims about others through the internet and social media. This implies that cyber-libel has a place in Ghanaian law. 

‘’To put it differently, for those who wish to engage in cyber-libel and/or defame others, the Internet medium provides an easily accessible platform to do so.’’[39]

Additionally, the case distinguished cyber-libel from traditional forms of defamation on the basis of the medium through which it was published and the potential harm it posed to a victim’s reputation because of the tendency for online content to be accepted at face value, notwithstanding its instantaneous nature and having global reach. 

Finally, the court also touched on jurisdiction to hear a matter of this nature. It asserted that since publication happens where the recipient hears or reads a defamatory statement, then the tortfeasor could be held liable for cyber-libel in a different jurisdiction than where he originally published the defamatory statement. 

"with regards to publications on the Internet… a publisher on the Internet ought to understand the risk of being liable in all the jurisdictions where the statements published were either illegal or inflicted some damage.”[40]

The thought behind this seems to be that since the internet makes content globally accessible, publication is not strictly limited to the geographic location where the tortfeasor made the statement. Therefore, a publisher on the internet assumes the risk of having legal proceedings brought against him in any jurisdiction where the content is accessible and causes reputational harm.

Rev. John Ntim Fordjour v Stephen Cobbah And Yaw Korankye[41] 

In April 2024, Ranking Member of the Defence and Interior Committee of Parliament and Member of Parliament for Assin South, Rev. John Ntim Fordjour instituted legal proceedings against two individuals for alleged defamatory statements made on WhatsApp in a group named ‘Assinman Politics Gh.’[42] Rev Fordjour sought inter alia, a declaration by the court that the statements in question were defamatory, damages as compensation and a retraction of the statements by the defendants followed by an apology.[43]

The plaintiff, currently a Senior Pastor of Higher Heights Sanctuary and a Member of Parliament for Assin South Constituency had held several high offices in the country including former Deputy Minister of Education. These were positions which would ordinarily impute high esteem on him in the sight of right-thinking members of society, such that any malicious statement against him would bring this status into disrepute. 

Eventually, the Cape Coast High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. In a judgment delivered on Monday, April 28, 2025, the court first declared that the words published by the defendants on the Assinman Politics Gh Whatsapp platform were defamatory and thus the defendants were liable to pay damages amounting to GHS 700,00.00. Furthermore, the defendants were directed by the court to retract the defamatory statements from the platform and render an unqualified apology in writing to the plaintiff and publish it on any media platform where the defendants circulated the defamatory statements.

The import of this case broadened the purview of what amounts to publication of defamatory remarks. In this instance, the defamatory remarks were made on WhatsApp. WhatsApp is the world’s most popular messaging application with over 2.2 billion users worldwide.[44] It is also a social media platform that is very popular among Ghanaians. An average user of this platform is allowed to message other users, create groups and share status updates with very little interference by service operators.  Thus, it presents a viable medium where content or in this case, defamatory statements can be published in fixed forms through messages, pictures and even voice recordings. 

Bright Kojo Onipayede v Albert Nathaniel Hyde[45]

The final case study for this paper is the matter between Bright Kojo Onipayede v Albert Nathaniel Hyde. In this case, the plaintiff who is a renowned social media influencer and businessman known as ‘Kojo Forex’ brought an action for damages premised on libel for certain statements that the defendant, another media personality recognized as ‘Bongo Ideas’ made on the ‘X’ social media platform. The plaintiff argued that the defendant regularly published defamatory statements about the source of his wealth and further accused him of engaging in illicit behaviours through his ‘X’ account. The plaintiff also contended that these statements were made without justification and out of spite. The effect of which allegedly caused him to lose customers for his forex academy where he trained individuals in online trading. 

The Accra High Court (General Jurisdiction 2) held that the statements and words published by the defendant on his ‘X’ timeline were defamatory to the reputation of the plaintiff. Thus the defendant was ordered to publish an unqualified public apology and retract the statement in addition to damages to the tune of GHC 170,000.

A running theme can be seen in the foregoing case studies,  that is, a defendant uses social media to make baseless claims about the plaintiffs thereinafter the court holds them liable for defamation. Accordingly, even though the acts of defamation happened on different social media platforms,  the courts apply the traditional tortious principles.

 Causes and Lasting Impacts of Cyber-Libel

The prevalence of these types of actions in recent times are not a coincidence and the author submits that this is mainly due to two factors. These are

1. Low barrier to communicate
2. Incentive to grow an online following

On the first factor, the accessibility of the internet and associated technology increases the chances of cyber-libel because individuals are given a large platform to share their views on a limitless category of topics. There is also a low barrier to communicate these opinions because most social media websites champion free speech. Any person with an account and internet connection is free to speak online as they please to any audience. Few platforms actually possess features that review and filter messages before they are posted. Thus, a person could post messages filled with vulgar and insulting language directed at another person and that message would be hosted by the platform. 

The second factor touches on the desire of influencers to grow their online presence. A majority of social media platforms operate with a following/follower system where a user can gain followers by posting engaging content.[46]  Consequently, accounts on various social media platforms are incentivised to share controversial or triggering news online to garner attention and grow their online followings.  Bigger followings often come with lucrative sponsorships deals and partnerships with brands which increase their revenue. On X for instance, under their new monetization scheme implemented by owner  Elon Musk, users can generate income through their account based on how much engagement their posts receive in a given timeframe.[47] Such a mechanism would drive people to do anything to increase their engagement including posting fake and unsubstantiated news about other personalities. Many people have been able to build lucrative careers on the back of controversy and notoriety in this manner.

The dangers of cyber-libel as touched on in the Ace Anan Ankomah case stem from the fact that statements made online are instantaneous, easily-believable and everlasting. Online statements can be delivered to an indefinite number of people with the tap of a screen or the click of the mouse. They have far more reach than print media, thus any statement made on the internet can affect a person’s reputation in different localities and jurisdictions.

People also tend to believe the information that they see online. This can be very damaging to one’s reputation because in the absence of fact checking and verification, unsubstantiated information would be taken at face value. Additionally, the saying that nothing truly dies on the internet carries weight. Once something is uploaded online, it can be downloaded for offline use by any person who chances upon it. This could seemingly immortalize anything even if the original user subsequently deletes it.

Recommendations and Conclusion

The author of this article calls for a stricter legal regime to protect the reputation of individuals online. Our current Cybersecurity framework should be amended and broadened  to fit the nuances of cyber-libel and not just rely on traditional defamation law. This would provide safeguards which are specifically tailored to address it. Additionally, leading technology law experts in the country should be consulted to assist in the development and promulgation of these frameworks. These experts have a wealth of information on an area of science and law that is now developing in our country. Their knowledge and expertise should be harnessed to inform policy and legislative innovation. Finally, inspiration can be taken from the jurisdictions referenced in this article, as well as others not discussed to aid in the creation of robust policies and innovative legislation.

[1] These platforms include; Tiktok, WhatsApp, ‘X’ formally known as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Youtube. 

[2] Raymond Atuguba, ‘Ghana Developing through Law’ (IEA Policy Analysis, August 2005).

[3] [1961] GLR 523.

[4] 1992 Constitution of Ghana,Chapter 6; Article 21.

[5] 1992 Constitution of Ghana, Article 12 (2).

[6] 1992 Constitution of Ghana, Article 21 (1) (a).

[7] 1992 Constitution of Ghana, Article 15.

[8] 1992 Constitution of Ghana, Article 18 (2) (a).

[9] Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), Section 54

[10] John Mensah Sarbah, ‘Fanti Customary Laws’ 2nd edn, London (William Clowes and Sons Ltd, 1904) 113.

[11] Serwah v Sefa [1984-1986] 2 GLR 390-394

[12] Parmiter v. Coupland (1840) 6 M & W 105

[13] Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER

[14] Rubber Improvement Ltd v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] AC 234, at 285

[15] Eric Kwame Amoah v Ben Owusu Dormena [2015-2016] 1 SCGLR 790

[16] Yousoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (1934) 50 TLR 581, CA. It must be noted that in some instances, the number of citizens need not be substantial as even one person would suffice.

[17] Jones v. Skelton (1963) 1 W.L.R.

[18] Black’s Law Dictionary, revised fourth edition by Bryan A. Garner

[19] Duffour v. Bank of Ghana & Anor [2022] GHASC 36

[20] Grubb v Bristol United Press, Ltd. [1962] 3 W.L.R. 25

[21] Knupffer v London Express Newspaper [1944] AC 116

[22] Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239

[23] Newstead v London Express Newspapers Ltd [1910] AC 20 

[24] Pullman v Walter Hill & Co [1891] 1 QB 524, 

[25] Ibid

[26] Monson v Tussauds Ltd Ltd [ 1894] 1 QB 671.

[27] John Mensah Sarbah, ‘Fanti Customary Laws’ 2nd edn, London (William Clowes and Sons Ltd, 1904) 113.

[28] [1984-86] 2 GLR 390-394.

[29]  Barry J. Waldman, Comment, A Unified Approach to Cyber-Libel: Defamation on the Internet, a Suggested Approach, 6 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 9 (Fall 1999) .

[30] Ace Anan Ankomah v Kevin Ekow Baidoo Taylor Suit No: GJ/1692/2019.

[31] Ismail Husain Alhosani et al, Pillars of the Crime of Cyber Libel, IJAREM  Vol 12, Issue 2, (2023) E-ISSN: 2226-3624 : http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJAREMS/v12-i2/17575.

[32] Section 4(c)(4) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Republic Act No. 10175 (RA 10175).

[33] Disini v Secretary of Justice 727 Phil. 28.

[34] See Federal Law Decree No. (34) of 2021 on combatting rumours and cybercrime .

[35] Ismail Husain Alhosani, Kawthar Abdalla Bayoumi and Mohammad Naqib Bin Hamdan, ‘Pillars of the Crime of Cyber Libel’ (2023) 12(2) International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJAREMS/v12-i2/17575 accessed 12 September 2025.

[36] Including the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008 (Act 772), Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775), CybersecurityAct, 2020.

[37]  Ace Anan Ankomah v Kevin Ekow Baidoo Taylor Suit No: GJ/1692/2019.

[38] One user referred to Mr. Ankomah as a devil incarnate.

[39] Suit No: GJ/1692/2019.

[40] Ibid

[41] Rev. John Ntim Fordjour V Stephen Cobbah @ Adepa And Yaw Korankye @ Ampong Suit No.: E7/04/2024 (This is the summary of the judgment as the full judicial opinion has not been published by the Honourable Court.).

[42] Bright,‘Ntim-Fordjour wins GHS 1 million defamation suit against detractors’(Daily Statesman, April 28 2025) <https://dailystatesman.com.gh/ntim-fordjour-wins-ghs-1-million-defamation-sui t-against- detractors/> accessed 12 September 2025.

[43]DL News, ‘Court awards MP GHS 700k in defamation case over WhatsApp allegations (DennisLawNews, 30 April 2025) <https://dennislawnews.com/article/court-awards-mp

-ghs-700k-in-defamation-case-over-whatsapp-allegations/> accessed 12 September 2025.

[44] Roland Martin, ‘Social media’ (Britannica, last updated 15 September 2025) <https://www.britannica

.com/topic/social-media> accessed 12 September 2025.

[45] Bright Kojo Onipayede v Albert Nathaniel Hyde Suit No: Gj0/0829/2023.

[46] Instagram and X have followers, Youtube and Twitch have subscribers,  LinkedIn has connections.  

[47] X’s Creator Monetization Standards (X, 2025)< https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/

content-monetization-standards> accessed 16 September 2025.