Media Law and Ethics Lecturer and Lawyer, Zakaria Tanko Musah has explained that Ghana operates largely under common law principles in defining defamation. He stated that the courts assess whether published or spoken words expose a person to ridicule, contempt or professional damage in the eyes of reasonable members of society.

He further indicated that defamation is not triggered by every negative statement, stressing that the truth of an allegation plays a decisive role in legal outcomes. In his explanation, he noted that where a statement is proven to be true, liability does not arise under defamation law.

“Have you said or written something about somebody that exposes them to ridicule or contempt, that makes them to be shunned or avoided, or disparages them in their profession or trade?”
Zakaria Tanko Musah

He added that the legal burden shifts to a publisher once a claim is disputed in court, requiring justification of what has been published. He emphasised that allegations without judicial backing remain vulnerable when challenged.

Additionally, he explained that journalists face legal risk when publishing claims that have not been tested in court. He noted that once defamation proceedings begin, the responsibility moves to the publisher to substantiate allegations with evidence.

He referenced distinctions between defamation and contempt, indicating that truth serves as a defence in defamation but does not apply in contempt proceedings. This distinction, he said, shapes how legal disputes involving media statements are evaluated.

Furthermore, he highlighted that reputational claims must be grounded in fact before publication to avoid legal exposure. He added that reasonable belief alone does not satisfy the evidential threshold in court.

He also pointed to the role of judicial determination in shaping what may be safely published. According to him, once a competent court has made a ruling, reporting on that outcome carries different legal implications compared to unverified allegations.

The legal expert stressed that caution remains essential in reporting matters involving allegations of wrongdoing. He stated that failure to verify claims exposes communicators to litigation and potential damages.

Legal Safeguards And Parliamentary Privilege Influence Media Practice

Zakaria Tanko Musah emphasised that media practitioners operate within defined legal defences that include truth, justification and fair comment. He stressed that commentary must be anchored on verified facts to remain legally defensible.

He noted that fair comment only applies where a statement is based on established facts and presented without malice. He added that journalists are expected to ensure that opinions are separated from invented or unverified assertions.

“There has to be a fact, and based on that fact, you make a comment. That comment has to be without malice.”
Zakaria Tanko Musah

He accentuated that public officials and institutions are often subject to scrutiny, yet reporting must still meet legal standards. He added that journalists may analyse disciplinary or public interest matters provided factual accuracy is maintained.

Additionally, he addressed parliamentary privilege, noting that statements made on the floor of Parliament attract legal protections. He indicated that such remarks are generally handled internally through parliamentary committees rather than external litigation.

He referenced the Privileges Committee as a key mechanism for addressing misconduct within parliamentary proceedings. He explained that this system allows internal accountability without immediate court action.

Moreover, he stated that journalists reporting parliamentary proceedings are protected when relying on official records such as the Hansard. He added that accuracy in transcription remains essential to maintain qualified privilege.

He also highlighted ongoing debates around whether media practitioners should access similar internal review mechanisms in defamation disputes. He referenced proposals for engagement with institutions such as the National Media Commission as part of alternative resolution frameworks.

He pointed to distinctions between libel and slander, explaining that libel involves permanent publication while slander relates to transient spoken words. He noted that courts often assess permanence and demonstrable damage when determining liability.

“In libel, there is permanency to what you have put out. Slander is transient and cannot be retrieved.”
Zakaria Tanko Musah

He added that libel cases may proceed without strict proof of damage where publication tends to harm reputation, while slander often requires demonstrable loss. He indicated that these distinctions continue to shape legal interpretation in media cases.

The legal practitioner stressed that clearer statutory direction would assist both journalists and courts in navigating defamation disputes. He added that ongoing legal debates reflect the need for refinement in existing frameworks governing media accountability.