A High Court in Ghana has ordered the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) to pay a fine of GH¢100,000 for its failure to release information requested by a private citizen under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

The judgment was delivered following a legal challenge initiated by the applicant after EOCO declined to comply with their access to information request. According to court records, the plaintiff had submitted a formal request to EOCO seeking specific information held by the office.

Under Ghana's RTI Act, public institutions are mandated to provide access to records within stipulated timelines, unless the requested information falls under a legally recognised exemption. The plaintiff alleged that despite making a valid request, EOCO refused to provide the information without a justifiable legal reason.

The case was subsequently taken to the High Court after all internal and administrative avenues for redress had been exhausted by the applicant.

In its ruling, the court found that EOCO’s refusal to release the information constituted a violation of the Right to Information Act. The presiding judge emphasised that Ghanaian citizens possess a constitutional and statutory right to access information held by public institutions, and that unjustified refusals undermine transparency and accountability in public affairs.

As a direct consequence of this breach, the court imposed a fine of GH¢100,000 on EOCO. Furthermore, the ruling directed the Office to comply with the RTI request and release the information to the applicant. The specific nature of the information requested was not disclosed in media reports.

Legal analysts suggest that this case significantly highlights the enforcement mechanisms embedded within Ghana's RTI framework. It reinforces the principle that even powerful statutory bodies must adhere to transparency obligations. The decision is expected to have considerable implications for how public agencies handle information requests across the country in the future.

As of now, EOCO has not issued any public statement regarding the court's decision or whether it intends to appeal the ruling.