High Court Rejects Atiwa East DCE Ernest Ntim Owusu’s Bid to Restrain Commentary on His Alleged Galamsey Activities
Court rules DCE failed to identify the alleged defamatory statements in injunction application.

- High Court dismissed the Atiwa East DCE's injunction application
- Judge ruled the alleged defamatory statements were not specifically identified
- Court held restraining commentary before a defamation ruling would set a bad precedent
The High Court in Koforidua, on Wednesday, July 15, 2026, dismissed an application filed by the District Chief Executive (DCE) for Atiwa East, Ernest Ntim Owusu, against Daniel Ansah, also known as Abeiku, the Town Planning Committee Chairman of Ankaase-Gyadam in the Atiwa East District, and Asaase Broadcasting Company (Asaase Radio).
Through the application, the DCE sought an injunction to restrain Abeiku and Asaase Radio from making or publishing allegations and statements concerning his alleged involvement in galamsey activities.
Arguing the motion, counsel for the DCE urged the court to restrain Abeiku from making further comments or publications which, according to the DCE, were defamatory, since Abeiku had not produced any evidence to support his claims.
In response, counsel for Abeiku, after showing the court videos allegedly depicting extensive land destruction linked to the DCE’s alleged galamsey activities, urged the court to dismiss the application. He argued that no court had determined Abeiku’s statements to be defamatory and that restraining him at this stage would infringe upon his constitutional right to freedom of speech. Counsel further submitted that the exercise of that right was in the public interest and should not be
impeded. He added that until it is established that the alleged libel is false, it cannot be said that any legal right has been infringed.
In her ruling delivered on July 15, 2026, the presiding judge, Justice Arit Nsemoh, held that the DCE had failed to identify the specific statements he claimed were defamatory and for which he sought to restrain Abeiku. She further stated that it would set a bad precedent to restrain Abeiku before the court had determined whether the statements were, in fact, defamatory.
Consequently, the court dismissed the DCE’s application.



