Critics see a crackdown on dissent. The government says it is enforcing laws that have existed for decades. The truth lies in a more complicated constitutional debate about free speech, digital misinformation and the state’s duty to protect public order, writes Jon Offei-Ansah
Keypoints:
• Ghana’s speech-related laws long predate the Mahama administration
• The repeal of criminal libel remains a key distinction in the debate
• Social media has transformed the scale and impact of harmful communications
THE debate over speech-related arrests in Ghana has become one of the most politically charged discussions of President John Mahama’s second presidency. Figures published by the Media Foundation for West Africa suggest that 14 arrests linked to alleged false news and offensive speech have occurred within roughly 16 months, nearly double the number recorded during the previous administration’s eight years in office.
To critics, those figures point towards an alarming trend. To government supporters, they reflect the enforcement of long-standing laws in a radically different communications environment. Both perspectives contain elements of truth, but neither tells the full story.
The central question is not whether Ghana values free expression. It clearly does. The country remains one of Africa’s most vibrant democracies, with a competitive political system, an active media sector and constitutional protections that rank among the strongest on the continent. The more difficult question is whether freedom of expression includes the right to knowingly spread falsehoods, issue threats, provoke panic or use digital platforms to undermine public order without consequence.
Under Ghanaian law, the answer has always been no.
Free speech has never been absolute
Ghana’s Constitution strongly protects freedom of speech and media freedom. Those protections have helped shape the country’s democratic reputation and have enabled journalists, opposition politicians and civil society groups to operate in a relatively open environment for more than three decades.
However, the Constitution also recognises that rights come with responsibilities. Citizens are free to criticise governments, challenge public officials and express unpopular opinions. What the law does not automatically protect are actions that cross into areas defined as harmful or unlawful, including threats, incitement and certain forms of knowingly false communication.
This principle is hardly unique to Ghana. Democracies around the world place limits on speech when it creates a demonstrable risk to public safety, national security or the rights of others. The challenge is always determining where that line should be drawn.
This is not a return to criminal libel
One of the most important facts often missing from the public debate is that Ghana abolished criminal libel in 2001 under President John Agyekum Kufuor. The repeal was widely regarded as a landmark victory for press freedom and remains one of the most significant democratic reforms in the country’s Fourth Republic.
The current arrests are therefore not criminal libel prosecutions.
That distinction matters because some commentary has created the impression that Ghana is gradually returning to a period when journalists and critics could be imprisoned for merely criticising those in power. The legal basis for most recent arrests lies elsewhere.
Authorities have instead relied on provisions such as Section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act and Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, which deal with false publications, harmful communications and conduct deemed likely to cause fear, alarm or public disorder.
Critics may legitimately question whether these provisions are being interpreted too broadly. However, it is inaccurate to suggest that the state has formally revived criminal libel by another name.
The laws are older than the current government
Another weakness in many criticisms is the suggestion that the Mahama administration has created new legal tools to suppress dissent.
Neither of the principal provisions being cited today originated under the current government. They have existed through successive NDC and NPP administrations and remained largely dormant or selectively enforced depending on the political climate of the day.
The legal framework itself has changed very little.
What has changed is the intensity of enforcement.
This distinction is important because most critics are not calling for the outright repeal of these laws. Rather, they are questioning whether authorities have become more willing to invoke them and whether that shift reflects legitimate law enforcement or a narrowing of political space.
Technology has changed faster than the law
The strongest argument available to the government is arguably not legal but technological.
Many of the laws at the centre of today’s controversy were drafted for a communications environment dominated by newspapers, radio stations and television broadcasters. They are now being applied in a world shaped by TikTok, WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube and X.
The difference is profound.
A rumour that once might have circulated among a few hundred people can now reach millions within hours. Anonymous accounts can manufacture narratives, coordinate misinformation campaigns and mobilise public outrage before journalists, regulators or fact-checkers have an opportunity to verify what is true.
The government can therefore argue that the law has not become more restrictive; rather, society has become more vulnerable to the harms the law was originally designed to address.
That argument is not unique to Ghana. Governments across Europe, North America and Africa are grappling with similar challenges as digital platforms dramatically expand the reach and impact of harmful content.
Ghana has experienced the consequences of misinformation
The debate also cannot be separated from Ghana’s own experience.
Over the years, the country has witnessed the rapid spread of false election-related claims, fabricated reports about public officials and misinformation during the Covid-19 pandemic. Security agencies have also periodically been forced to respond to false reports of military activity, alleged coup plots and exaggerated claims capable of generating unnecessary public anxiety.
While many of these incidents did not result in violence, they demonstrated how quickly misinformation can spread and how difficult it can be to contain once it gains traction online.
From the government’s perspective, these experiences strengthen the argument that some level of enforcement is necessary to deter conduct capable of causing real-world harm.
The arrest figures require context
The figure of 14 arrests has understandably attracted public attention. However, arrest statistics alone are an imperfect measure of democratic health.
Numbers by themselves tell only part of the story.
How many complaints were filed? How many investigations were opened? How many cases proceeded to prosecution? How many were dismissed by the courts? How many resulted in convictions?
Without answers to those questions, arrest figures risk creating a misleading picture.
An increase in arrests could reflect more aggressive enforcement. It could also reflect an increase in alleged violations, improved monitoring capabilities or greater public reporting of harmful content.
The case of TikToker Prince Ofori, popularly known as ‘Fante Comedy’, illustrates the complexity of the debate. Ofori was arrested over alleged threats directed at President Mahama, prompting criticism from opposition figures and civil society groups. Yet the case also demonstrated how quickly such incidents can become politicised. Within days of his arrest, Ofori appeared at an opposition political rally, with government supporters arguing that the episode reinforced concerns that some speech-related cases are immediately reframed through a partisan lens before the courts have had an opportunity to determine the facts.
The figures therefore raise legitimate questions, but they do not by themselves prove democratic decline.
Governments have obligations as well as powers
Much of the criticism directed at the government focuses on the powers of the state. Less attention is paid to its obligations.
Governments are not only expected to protect freedoms. They are also expected to maintain public order, protect citizens and preserve confidence in public institutions.
Election-related misinformation has fuelled instability in several countries. False security alerts have caused panic. Fabricated claims concerning ethnic, religious or political tensions have contributed to unrest across parts of Africa.
A government that ignores such risks entirely could reasonably be accused of failing in its constitutional responsibilities.
The challenge is therefore not whether the state should act, but whether it acts proportionately and within the limits imposed by law.
The courts remain the ultimate safeguard
An often-overlooked aspect of this debate is the role of Ghana’s judiciary.
Arrests do not determine guilt. Nor do accusations automatically establish criminal liability.
The country’s courts remain responsible for deciding whether prosecutors have met the legal thresholds required by law and whether constitutional protections have been respected. If authorities overreach, the judiciary retains the power to dismiss cases, exclude evidence and provide remedies where rights have been violated.
That institutional safeguard is one of the reasons why arrest statistics alone should not be viewed as conclusive evidence of democratic erosion.
In a constitutional democracy, the ultimate test is not simply whether arrests occur but whether independent courts continue to exercise meaningful oversight.
The strongest criticism concerns selective enforcement
While the government’s legal argument is substantial, that does not mean every concern should be dismissed.
The most persuasive criticism is not that the laws exist. Nor is it necessarily that authorities are enforcing them.
The more important question is whether enforcement is applied consistently.
Are government supporters investigated with the same intensity as opposition activists? Are similar offences treated similarly regardless of political affiliation? Are prosecutorial decisions based on objective criteria?
These questions strike at the heart of public confidence.
A law applied impartially strengthens democratic institutions. The same law applied selectively can undermine them.
The burden therefore falls on the state not merely to demonstrate that arrests are lawful but also to show that enforcement is politically neutral.
The Mahama paradox
The controversy is sharpened by President Mahama’s own history.
While in opposition, he warned against the use of state power to intimidate dissent and described such practices as a dangerous precedent for democracy. Critics now cite those remarks as evidence of inconsistency.
Yet the comparison is not entirely straightforward.
Mahama’s criticism was directed primarily at what he viewed as arbitrary or politically motivated state action. It did not amount to an argument that criminal laws governing threats, false publications or harmful communications should never be enforced.
A government can oppose abuse of state power while still supporting the prosecution of conduct that falls within existing criminal statutes. The critical issue is whether arrests are supported by evidence, due process and independent judicial oversight rather than political considerations.
That is ultimately the standard by which the current administration should be judged.
The real democratic test
The debate over speech-related arrests should not be reduced to a simplistic contest between free speech and authoritarianism. Such framing obscures the more complex constitutional questions at stake.
Ghana faces the same challenge confronting democracies around the world: how to preserve robust political debate while responding to the risks created by digital misinformation, online threats and increasingly polarised public discourse.
The government’s reliance on long-standing laws is neither unprecedented nor inherently undemocratic. What will determine the legitimacy of its actions is whether enforcement remains proportionate, evidence-based, politically neutral and subject to meaningful judicial scrutiny.
For now, the strongest legal interpretation is that the Mahama administration is enforcing existing statutory provisions within a dramatically transformed communications environment. Whether that enforcement ultimately strengthens or weakens Ghana’s democratic credentials will depend less on the number of arrests than on whether the law continues to be applied fairly, transparently and without regard to political affiliation.
That is the standard by which this administration—and every future administration—should be judged.
ifbt7w