Press Freedom in Grenada: From Criminal Libel to the Cybercrime Fight

In July 2012 Grenada became, according to the International Press Institute, the first Caribbean country to remove criminal libel from its statute books. A year later Parliament passed an Electronic Crimes Act that press freedom groups said threatened to bring the offence back through the back door, and in 2014 it amended that law. The sequence captures the state of press freedom in Grenada: generally open, legally improved, but with recurring tension between governments and critics.

This explainer sets out the legal framework that shapes what journalists and ordinary citizens can publish in Grenada, from the constitution to defamation and online communication, and identifies the issues that remain unsettled. It is general information, not legal advice; anyone facing a specific dispute should consult a lawyer.

The constitutional starting point

Grenada's 1973 Constitution protects freedom of expression in its chapter on fundamental rights and freedoms. That protection covers the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and communicate ideas and information without interference. Like similar provisions across the Commonwealth Caribbean, it allows limits that are reasonably required for purposes such as defence, public order, public morality, protecting other people's reputations and rights, and maintaining the authority of the courts.

Courts decide whether a particular law or action goes beyond what the constitution permits. In practice, constitutional challenges are relatively rare in Grenada, partly because litigation is expensive. The Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court sits as Grenada's superior court, with final appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.

The constitution has been suspended once. After the March 1979 revolution, the People's Revolutionary Government ruled by People's Laws, and press freedom was severely restricted. The constitution was restored after 1983. Proposals for constitutional reform were put to voters in 2016, including a bill on rights and freedoms, but all were rejected in the referendum.

2012: the end of criminal libel

What changed. In July 2012 Parliament amended the Criminal Code to remove criminal libel, meaning that a journalist or citizen could no longer be prosecuted and imprisoned for defamatory publications. Press freedom groups, including the International Press Institute, welcomed the change and pointed to Grenada as a regional example.

What stayed. The reform left in place provisions on seditious libel and insulting the sovereign, which critics argue could still be used against expression. These offences are rarely, if ever, prosecuted, but their presence on the books is a point of concern for advocates.

Civil defamation remains. People who believe their reputation has been damaged can still sue in the civil courts for damages. For media outlets, the cost of defending a lawsuit, even a successful defence, can be heavy relative to their size.

Why it matters. Criminal penalties create a chilling effect, discouraging reporting on powerful people. Removing them lowered that risk, though civil claims still require careful journalism.

The Electronic Crimes Act controversy

In 2013 Parliament passed the Electronic Crimes Act, intended to address hacking, online fraud, child exploitation and other cybercrime. Section 6 created an offence of sending electronic messages that were offensive, menacing or false, with penalties reported as up to a year in prison and a fine of up to EC$100,000. Press freedom organisations, including the International Press Institute and Reporters Without Borders, warned that the wording was so broad it could criminalise online criticism and effectively reinstate criminal libel for the internet.

Prime Minister Keith Mitchell said publicly that criminal libel had gone and was not coming back, and promised changes. The Act was nonetheless gazetted in its original form. In 2014 the House of Representatives voted to amend it, removing Section 6 along with provisions on electronic stalking and warrantless arrest that had also drawn criticism.

The episode is frequently cited as an example of the role regional and international advocacy can play, and of the importance of scrutinising how cybercrime laws define offences. Similar debates have occurred in other Caribbean countries as governments legislate for online harms.

Access to information: the unfinished piece

Freedom of the press depends not only on what journalists may publish but also on what they can find out. Many countries have freedom of information laws that give citizens a legal right to request government records. In Grenada, a Freedom of Information Act has been discussed and drafted over the years, and governments have included it on legislative agendas, but advocates and regional reports have repeatedly described the country as lacking a working right-to-information regime. Readers should check the current status with Parliament or the Government Information Service, since legislative plans change.

Without such a law, journalists rely on official releases, parliamentary questions, published reports such as those of the Director of Audit, court records and leaks. Leaked documents frequently drive Grenadian news stories, which in turn generates debate about the protection of whistleblowers and the responsibility of outlets to verify material before publishing.

Live broadcasting of parliamentary sittings and regular post-Cabinet press briefings provide important windows into government, but they are discretionary rather than rights that citizens can enforce.

Elections, courts and contempt

Election periods bring additional sensitivities. Political advertising, party broadcasts and claims about candidates multiply, and complaints about unfair coverage are common. Outlets must also be careful not to publish anything that could prejudice a court case. Contempt of court rules prevent reporting that could influence the outcome of a trial, such as publishing a suspect's previous convictions or commenting on guilt before a verdict.

In a small country where jurors and witnesses may well follow the same radio programmes, courts take contempt seriously. Reporters covering criminal cases generally stick to what is said in open court. Judges can also restrict reporting in specific cases, for example to protect children or victims of sexual offences.

These limits apply to everyone who publishes, including people posting on social media. Comments about an ongoing case on a Facebook page can raise the same contempt and defamation issues as a newspaper article, a point that is often misunderstood.

How Grenada compares with its neighbours

International monitors such as Freedom House have generally rated Grenada as free, with a vibrant if partisan media and few reports of physical attacks on journalists. Its 2012 decision on criminal libel was followed by Jamaica in 2013, and debates about decriminalisation have continued elsewhere in the region. The Electronic Crimes Act episode, by contrast, showed how quickly gains can be questioned when new technology laws are drafted broadly. Grenada's experience is often cited in regional discussions about balancing protection against online abuse with freedom of expression.

Like other small states, Grenada is not always included in global press freedom rankings that focus on larger countries, so assessments often come from regional bodies and journalists themselves. Their recurring themes are less about overt censorship than about the economic fragility of outlets, the cost of defamation suits and the slow progress on access to information.

Pressures that do not appear in law

Formal legal protections tell only part of the story. Press freedom groups and Grenadian journalists point to other pressures typical of small states, which can matter as much as any statute in deciding what gets reported.

• Economic pressure. Dependence on government and large private advertisers can encourage caution and self-censorship.
• Social closeness. In a small society, reporters, officials and the subjects of stories often know each other personally, making critical coverage socially costly.
• Political labelling. Journalists and outlets are quickly labelled as supporters of one party, which can be used to dismiss their work.
• Online harassment. Journalists, particularly women, can face abuse on social media after publishing contentious stories.
• Litigation costs. Even unsuccessful defamation suits can drain small outlets of money and time.
• Access to officials. Reporters seen as critical may find it harder to get interviews or responses, which can make their stories appear one-sided.

Frequently asked questions