A Democratic Reckoning Under the Mahama Administration. When a government begins to respond to criticism with arrest, it must be asked, not emotionally, but constitutionally, what principle of law is being defended?
Article 21(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution guarantees “freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media.” This provision is not ornamental. It is a structural pillar of our democratic order.
Yet in recent months, activists, communicators, and journalists, including political figures such as Sir Obama Pokuase, Kofi Ofosu Nkansah, Kwame Baffoe Abronye, and Fante Comedy, as well as media practitioners detained by National Security, have been arrested or detained largely under allegations of “publication of false news” or speech considered offensive to the state.
The legal question is unavoidable. Are we enforcing the law, or weaponising it? The abolition of criminal libel was not symbolic
Ghana repealed the Criminal Libel Law in 2001 for a reason. It was widely understood that criminal sanctions for speech were historically abused to silence political opponents and intimidate the press. The repeal was a democratic milestone.
If today the state resorts to broad and elastic offences such as “offensive conduct conducive to breach of the peace” or “publication of false news” as primary tools against political critics, then we must ask whether we are resurrecting, in substance, what we abolished in name. Democracy is not preserved by semantic creativity.
The doctrine of proportionality
In constitutional democracies, state action must satisfy the principle of proportionality. Is the measure lawful? Is it necessary? Is it the least restrictive means available?
If a citizen publishes allegedly false information, civil remedies exist. Defamation law allows aggrieved parties to seek redress in court. Corrections and public rebuttals are available. Injunctions may be pursued.
Arrest and detention should not be the reflexive response to uncomfortable speech.
When detention precedes verification, and prosecution substitutes for public rebuttal, the chilling effect is immediate and profound.
The chilling effect and democratic harm
The Supreme Court of Ghana has consistently recognised that freedom of expression must be interpreted broadly in order to sustain democratic accountability.
The danger here is not merely the fate of those arrested. The danger is the signal sent to every journalist, blogger, activist, and citizen: “Criticise at your peril.”
Once that message takes root, self-censorship replaces open debate. Democracy becomes performative rather than substantive. A government that appears intolerant of scrutiny does not strengthen its legitimacy, it erodes it.
Arrest is not exoneration
A troubling logic is emerging in public discourse: once critics are arrested, the allegations they raise are discredited. This is constitutionally backward.
In a democracy, truth is established through evidence, transparency, and judicial process, not through detention.
State power is coercive by nature. Its use must therefore be restrained, especially in matters touching political speech.
Selectivity and equal protection
Another constitutional concern is equality before the law under Article 17. If enforcement appears selective, harsh against critics but restrained toward allies, then the perception of political weaponisation becomes unavoidable. Rule of law requires neutrality. Without neutrality, enforcement becomes political theatre.
The precedent problem
Governments change. Legal precedents remain. Every administration that expands the boundaries of speech-related arrest leaves behind a tool that future governments may deploy, perhaps more aggressively.
If dissent today is treated as criminal inconvenience, tomorrow’s opposition will inherit the same machinery. Power is temporary. Constitutional damage is not.
A Republic at a crossroads
No serious observer defends deliberate misinformation. Falsehood can harm reputations and destabilise institutions. But constitutional democracies do not curtail speech with force; they curtail it with law, evidence, and proportional remedies.
The measure of a government is not how it handles praise, but how it handles criticism. If arrest becomes the default answer to dissent, we must say plainly that it is not democratic confidence. It is democratic fragility.
Ghana has long been celebrated as a beacon of constitutional governance in Africa. That reputation was earned through tolerance of robust political contestation, not its suppression.
The Republic must decide. Are we deepening democratic maturity, or shrinking civic space? Because once fear replaces debate, democracy survives in name only.
Conclusion
The Constitution was not written to comfort governments; it was written to restrain them. It exists precisely for moments like this, when power is tempted to silence rather than respond.
Ghana’s democratic strength has never been measured by the volume of praise directed at its leaders, but by the space it preserves for dissent.
If citizens begin to weigh their words not against truth, but against fear of arrest, then something far more dangerous than “false publication” is taking root.
A Republic does not decay in a single dramatic moment; it erodes when intimidation quietly replaces debate. The question before us is not partisan. It is generational.
What kind of democracy are we willing to hand over, one confident enough to endure criticism, or one fragile enough to criminaliseA it?
Hassan Adam Yarima
___________________
