Ghana faces a critical challenge as dangerous speech, including threats and misinformation, increasingly masquerades as free speech. This trend risks igniting instability, according to a recent commentary.
Political language that includes dangerous utterances should not automatically be considered sacred democratic speech. The Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) has warned about the "weaponisation" of false-news laws. However, it previously acknowledged that parts of Ghana's laws were enacted for public safety. This includes situations where false communications could endanger lives or emergency systems. This context is crucial and cannot be dismissed simply because its enforcement has become politically difficult.
Ghana has experienced firsthand how unchecked propaganda can lead to instability. In 2020, Ghana recorded at least eight election-related deaths. This occurred in a politically charged environment filled with disinformation and inflammatory rhetoric. The MFWA itself documented serious tensions during that period. Its reports also warned of declining professional standards and dangerous online propaganda ecosystems. Misinformation and politically motivated falsehoods, even calls for military intervention by media personalities, were noted. Such a situation should concern any nation committed to stability.
When political commentary turns into threats against leaders, glorification of death, or fabricated security claims, the state cannot ignore it as mere strong opinions. No functioning democracy operates this way. Examples from other nations serve as stark warnings. Rwanda saw extremist propaganda contribute to genocide. Kenya experienced over 1,000 deaths from post-election violence fueled by hate mobilization. Nigeria continues to suffer from the consequences of inflammatory religious and ethnic misinformation. Ghana itself has seen warning signs with misinformation related to Bawku, fake coup rumours, and ethnic propaganda.
The commentary differentiates between past and present. Under the current administration (2017-2024), arrests of journalists often involved accusations of false claims against powerful individuals. These cases may have warranted civil remedies rather than criminal intimidation. However, cases cited by the MFWA from an earlier era (pre-2017) appear more volatile. The current speech ecosystem is fundamentally different. It involves algorithm-driven virality, livestream extremism, and AI-assisted misinformation. This technology can reach millions within minutes.
A journalist exposing corruption is not the same as someone threatening public officials on TikTok. Political opinions are not identical to falsehoods designed to create panic. Mocking tragedies is not democratic dissent just because it trends online. This does not mean the state should arrest people without cause. Concerns about selective enforcement and intimidation of journalists are valid. However, civil society must stop grouping fundamentally different actions into a single narrative of "speech suppression." Losing the boundary between dissent and destabilization makes democracy vulnerable.
Protecting free speech and reforming vague laws are important. Prioritizing civil remedies is also necessary. But violent rhetoric, coordinated disinformation, and amplified extremism must never be normalized under the guise of democracy. History has demonstrated the dangerous consequences of such normalization.