Prominent journalist Larry Alans-Dogbey has filed a fierce appeal against his recent conviction for contempt of court, describing his prison sentence as a “violent and unprovoked attack” on press freedom and alleging that key evidence used against him was entirely fabricated.
The Notice of Appeal, filed at the Court of Appeal in Accra, seeks to overturn a June 25, 2026, ruling by High Court Judge Isaac Addo, J., which sentenced Alans-Dogbey to seven days in prison for allegedly breaching an injunction order regarding publications about Springfield Exploration and Production Limited and its CEO, Kevin Okyere.
Through his legal team at Kpatsa & Associates, the veteran journalist is asking the appellate court to completely set aside his conviction, discharge him from his sentence, and declare the underlying injunction void.
Allegations of ‘Photoshopped’ WhatsApp Proof
A central pillar of the appeal strikes directly at how prosecutors allegedly proved Alans-Dogbey was even served with the court documents. The journalist claims that the WhatsApp screenshot submitted to the court as proof of service was a fraudulent setup.
According to court filings, the screenshot showed a “Hi” message appearing on the left side of the screen which mathematically indicates it was received by the process server, Philip Buabeng Gyamfi, rather than sent by the journalist.
“The purported WhatsApp screenshot is therefore forged, fake, and photoshopped,” Alans-Dogbey stated under oath, maintaining he has never met, known, or communicated with the deponent, nor has he ever owned the phone number associated with the text.
His lawyers argue that names can easily be manipulated in digital interfaces for “nefarious purposes” and that an order obtained by fraud cannot legally stand.
An ‘Unconstitutional Gag Order’
The dispute stems from an ongoing defamation lawsuit filed by businessman Kevin Okyere and Springfield Exploration against Alans-Dogbey and Prime Mark Company Limited. In June 2025, an interlocutory injunction was issued restraining statements “intended to undermine and tarnish” Okyere’s reputation.
Alans-Dogbey’s appeal argues that the trial judge fundamentally erred by converting an overly vague injunction into a tool to muzzle public interest reporting. The journalist emphasizes that his subsequent reports were not malicious fabrications, but fair and accurate coverages of highly sensitive public documents. These included:
● A Supreme Court of Ghana decision (delivered on Feb 11, 2026) which dismissed an appeal by Springfield Exploration.
● Official petition documents filed with the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) alleging systematic economic crime.
● A letter from the Ministry of Energy regarding the withdrawal of a Unitisation Directive.
● A United Kingdom Court Charge Sheet alleging fraud.
The defense argues that punishing a journalist of over two decades for reporting on official state documents and Supreme Court rulings imposes a dangerous, unconstitutional gag order on the media.
Shifting the Burden of Proof
Furthermore, Alans-Dogbey’s legal counsel accuses the High Court judge of treating a civil, quasi-criminal contempt hearing like a defamation trial by erroneously forcing the journalist to prove the truth of his articles.
They argue that contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused willfully disobeyed a clear order. Because the trial judge himself admitted during the judgment that the original injunction’s wording was “vague,” the defense maintains it was legally impossible for the journalist to know exactly what statements were banned.
“You cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. It will crumble,” the defense noted, invoking historical legal precedent to argue that a void or ambiguous order cannot support a prison sentence.
The Court of Appeal will hear the case once the full record of proceedings is compiled. Meanwhile, copies of the notice have been served to Kevin Okyere’s legal team and the Attorney-General’s office.
