All Eyes on the Supreme Court as Press Freedom Faces Crucial Test

The defamation case filed by Ms. Niharika Handa against GhanaWeb, seeking the removal of an article published under the headline “From Wanted to Ghanaian Citizen: How foreign fugitives allegedly use Ghana as haven for fraud.” is scheduled for hearing before the Supreme Court on March 4, 2026.

According to filings before the Court, the appeal raises concerns on how the matter was handled in the lower courts. The Supreme Court is being asked to examine whether a certain party received preferential treatment and if procedural  errors were made in ordering the removal of the publication.

The affidavits submitted by the defendants outline a troubling pattern of cross-border identity mismatches of Niharika Handa and Punar Vasu Handa spanning India, Ghana, and Europe. The record before the Court raises questions on how Ghanaian citizenship was obtained within four years of arrival, while the beneficiary had multiple non-bailable arrest warrants active in India.

The filings further indicate that Niharika Handa conducted her international travels  only after the acquisition of Ghana passport reflecting a false date of birth. Exhibits include Indian court documents relating to a fraud matter in 2011 in which judicial findings identified Ms. Handa as the “mastermind”. Subsequent records of 2025 show that while arrest warrants were in force, a settlement was executed through a notarized Power of Attorney reflecting a different date of birth from earlier official records.

According to the documents presented, official records of Niharika Handa indicate different years of birth of Niharika Handa, including 1961, 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966, some of which were allegedly affirmed under oath in separate proceedings.

Counsel for the defendants has respectfully submitted that, in light of these official court documents and exhibits, it is a matter for judicial determination whether the publication can properly be characterized as defamatory. The appeal raises a broader constitutional question: whether an order to take off the publication was granted without allowing a full and fair examination of the evidence, thereby limiting the defendants’ opportunity to present their case.

The upcoming hearing is therefore being closely as a significant moment for following due court processes,  press freedom, and the public’s right to be informed.