Defamation in Hallowed Halls: Redefining the Defence of Absolute Privilege in the Context of Parliamentary Immunity in Ghana

Abstract

The law of defamation is intended to assure society’s strong interest in preventing and redressing attacks upon reputation. However, where the attack on reputation occurs on occasions the law recognizes as privileged, for example during parliamentary proceedings, the defence of absolute privilege applies to protect the defamer from defamation claims; even when it is clear the defamer was motivated by malice and the conduct or speech is false. Such a situation occurred in 2019 when the new member of parliament for the Ayawaso West Wougon constituency in Ghana, Lydia Seyram Alhassan (Ms. Alhassan), appeared in the Ghanaian parliament for the first time. All the members of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC); which had lost the seat in the by-election, clad in black, rose and held aloft placards bearing the inscription “Bloody Widow.” While the inscription was viewed by sections of the public to be defamatory, it was generally acknowledged that Ms. Alhassan would have no claim in defamation, and her only recourse would be to activate the process set out under the 1992 Constitution to obtain redress. However, this process is pointless because parliamentary utterances are protected by the defence of absolute privilege under the constitution. This article argues that for the process set out in the Constitution to be effective, the parliament of Ghana would need to overhaul and redefine the defence of absolute privilege. The article outlines two tests by which this may be achieved.