Accra, Ghana – A colonial-era law, Section 208 of Ghana’s Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), which criminalizes the publication of false news “likely to cause fear and alarm,” is facing renewed criticism for its persistent misuse by law enforcement. Despite being a relic from a bygone era and in direct conflict with the constitutional guarantee of free expression under Article 21 of the 1992 Constitution, the provision continues to be invoked against journalists, activists, and commentators, leading to arbitrary arrests and prosecutions that stifle legitimate discourse. This situation has prompted calls for its complete repeal, particularly in light of proposed legislation aimed at modernizing Ghana’s legal framework concerning misinformation and hate speech.
For decades, Section 208 has served as a tool to suppress dissenting voices. Its continued existence undermines Ghana’s democratic credentials, a concern amplified by a recent surge in its application. Over the past 18 months, legal analyst Samson Lardy Anyenini documented 16 cases where Section 208, often paired with Section 207 on “offensive conduct,” was misused. This marks a significant escalation compared to approximately a dozen such cases over the preceding eight years.
Despite consistent efforts by legal experts and media platforms to educate law enforcement on the correct interpretation and application of the law, these educational initiatives have proven ineffective. The culture of abuse surrounding Section 208 has remained resistant to correction, leading to the conclusion that repeal, rather than further education, is the only viable remedy.
The case of Kwame Baffoe, known as Abronye, currently before the Circuit Court in Accra, starkly illustrates the problem of misuse. Abronye faces charges under Section 207 for “offensive conduct” and Section 208 for “publication of false news.” The alleged statement, “You are not a Judge but rather a politician and you have covered your hair with a sack and claim you are a Judge,” is considered insulting and potentially defamatory, but it does not meet the threshold of being “false news likely to cause fear and alarm” as stipulated by Section 208.
Legal experts argue that such statements may offend or ridicule but do not threaten public peace or safety in the manner contemplated by the law. The appropriate avenue for addressing such speech, they contend, would be through civil defamation lawsuits, not criminal prosecution under Section 208. Invoking Section 208 for such remarks effectively expands its scope beyond constitutional limits, reviving the spirit of criminal and seditious libel, which Ghana abolished in 2001.
While acknowledging the growing threat posed by reckless speech, vitriolic insults, and partisan abuse on social media, the argument is made that the proper recourse lies in civil litigation, however time-consuming, rather than criminal detention. Criminalizing speech broadly risks punishing legitimate commentary alongside irresponsible conduct. The vague language of Section 208 and its reverse burden of proof render it a blunt instrument that erodes democratic debate and critical journalism.
The executive branch’s role in this ongoing issue is also under scrutiny. While not directly ordering prosecutions, the executive’s silence in the face of repeated abuse is seen as tacit endorsement, particularly when such actions target individuals within the government or politically exposed persons. Each instance of Section 208 being used against journalists or activists, without a strong condemnation from the executive, emboldens law enforcement to continue its use as a tool against dissent.
The recent Gambaga case is cited as an example where the likelihood of Section 208 being invoked would have been significantly lower had the executive publicly condemned its misuse. This highlights how leadership signals matter; silence is perceived as permissive rather than neutral. The questioning of a Metropolitan Chief Executive’s (MCE) competence by a citizen, for example, should not fall under these provisions to warrant police intervention.
Consequently, the repeal of Section 208 is presented not just as a legal necessity but as a democratic imperative to break the cycle of silence and suppression. The executive’s voice is expected to affirm constitutionalism, not enable its erosion through quiet acquiescence. Political figures, including former President John Mahama and influential members of the NDC, have condemned similar abuses, accusing the current administration of complicity. However, it is argued that condemnation should not be conditional on whether one’s allies are the targets; the NPP, currently vocal against these arrests, could have bolstered the cause by speaking out against such abuses when they were in opposition.
Beyond Section 208, Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775), which criminalizes false electronic communications, also faces similar criticism. Like Section 208, it has been used to target social media users and dissenters, and both provisions are seen as belonging to an era of suppression rather than constitutional democracy.
The proposed Misinformation, Disinformation, Hate Speech and Publication of Other Information Bill (2025) aims to address these issues by proposing the repeal of Section 208 and the amendment of Section 76. The bill seeks to limit sanctions for misinformation or disinformation under Section 76 to fines only, removing prison terms, particularly when such content endangers safety or life-saving services. This approach is viewed as a positive step forward, provided the bill does not introduce new vague offenses that could similarly curtail free speech.
The regulation of the internet and social media abuse must be precise, proportionate, and aligned with constitutional and international standards. International best practices, such as Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), emphasize that restrictions on speech must be necessary, proportionate, and narrowly tailored. The provisions under scrutiny are seen as failing these tests, with sweeping offenses being disproportionate and unconstitutional. Constructive reviews have been offered to Parliament, urging diligence in ensuring the MDHI Bill does not replicate the defects of repressive provisions under a new guise.
The repeal of Section 208 is therefore framed as an act to protect democracy rather than excuse recklessness. The law is deemed beyond repair, its misuse legitimized by executive silence, and educational efforts have failed. Ghana is urged to modernize its legal framework, regulate social media responsibly, and permanently abolish colonial-era speech offenses. This reform is presented as a democratic imperative, signaling Ghana’s commitment to free expression, constitutionalism, and the rule of law.
Leave a Reply