Ghanaian law enforcing the publication of false news has been misused in at least 16 cases over the last 18 months. This reflects a sharp escalation in the use of Section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). This law is meant to prevent statements that cause fear and alarm.
The provision criminalises false news likely to cause fear and alarm. It is a colonial-era law that many believe should have been removed years ago. Its continued use undermines Ghana's commitment to free expression, guaranteed under Article 21 of the 1992 Constitution. The Misinformation, Disinformation, Hate Speech and Publication of Other Information Bill aims to repeal Section 208.
This situation fits into a broader concern about democratic freedoms in Ghana. Critics argue these laws stifle legitimate commentary and journalism. Past efforts at educating law enforcement on the correct application of Section 208 have failed. This persistent abuse has led to a culture where the law is used as a tool to silence dissenting voices. Reports suggest a significant increase in prosecutions compared to the eight years before January 2025.
Samson Lardy Anyenini, a legal commentator, has repeatedly opposed the abusive application of these provisions. He states, "I am eternally opposed to the abusive resort to these provisions to repress free speech." He emphasises that the case of Kwame Baffoe @ Abronye, charged under Section 207 for offensive conduct and Section 208 for false news, exemplifies this misuse. The alleged statement about a judge was deemed insulting and defamatory, not likely to cause fear or alarm. Legitimate use would fall under civil defamation, not criminal law.
The implications of this trend are serious for Ghana's democratic institutions. Broadly criminalising speech punishes genuine commentary along with irresponsible actions. The vague wording of Section 208 and its reversed burden of proof make it a harmful instrument. This undermines democratic debate and cripples critical journalism. Executive silence on these abuses is seen as tacit approval, emboldening police and prosecutors. Leadership signals are crucial; silence in this context is permissive, not neutral. Repeal is therefore a legal and democratic imperative to break this cycle of suppression.