Ghana's democracy is struggling against a damaging practice called "selective outrage." Political parties often only defend people's rights when their own members are in trouble. They stay quiet when their opponents face the same problems. This inconsistency makes people lose faith in important institutions. It weakens the core ideas that democracy is supposed to protect.
This problem was clear in 2024. Oliver Barker Vormawor, a leader of the Democracy Hub protests, was denied bail. The High Court used a law called Section 96(5)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court said he might commit more crimes. He was already facing charges of treason. His lawyer argued he always came to court. This had happened for three years straight. But the court worried he might offend again. It told the lower court to start his trial within 72 hours. Or they had to re-think his bail.
At the time, the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) government supported the decision. The National Democratic Congress (NDC), then in opposition, called it an abuse of power. This was despite Oliver Barker Vormawor not being known as an NDC member. The NDC only focused on this because it helped them politically. Today, the situation has flipped. The same law, Section 96, is now used to deny bail to someone named Abronye. Now, the NPP is in opposition and strongly criticizes the ruling. They call it unfair treatment by the courts. They say it is an attack on free speech. Meanwhile, the NDC, now in government, defends the decision. The same arguments they once rejected, they now accept. This depends on who is in power and who is the victim.
These double standards damage the credibility of politicians. It makes them and their parties seem untrustworthy. They turn important rights, like bail and free speech, into tools for political gain. They are not treated as national principles. Many citizens see this hypocrisy. It makes them feel that politicians only care about protecting themselves. It deepens their doubt about whether leaders truly want justice. Breaking this cycle requires bravery and honest action. Politicians must defend freedoms even for their opponents. They must resist the temptation to use laws unfairly against critics. Many NPP leaders once criticized the use of laws like Section 207 and 208. But they also defended their use against NDC supporters.
Finally, leaders in Ghana need to learn that democracy cannot succeed with selective outrage. It needs steady and principled action. This action must happen even when it is hard. Legal practitioner Samson Lardy Anyenini has long spoken against these abuses. He has faced personal costs for his stance. He has lost friends on both political sides. He has also lost friends in the police and on the bench. He lost friends for criticizing the unfair prosecution of Oliver Barker Vormawor and other protesters. He also helped journalists who were attacked and mistreated. They eventually won their court case. He believes Ghana's democracy will only get stronger when leaders act with principle. This means acting with integrity, not just convenience.
The justice system in Ghana does work. It is run by people, so it has flaws. But when it functions correctly, it shows that justice protects against harm. In 2019, journalists from Modern Ghana faced criminal charges. The case seemed full of trickery. Judge Afia Asare-Botchway quickly saw the issue. She told the prosecution the charges were not real. She made it clear the court would not waste time. The state had not voluntarily withdrawn the case. Instead, the court gave a strong warning. This caused immediate embarrassment. Lawyers Raymond Bagnabu, Justice Srem-Sai, and Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo worked with Mr. Anyenini. They pursued a human rights case against National Security. The state eventually lost the case. It lost both the fake criminal case and the civil lawsuit. Some government officials were unhappy with the reporting. They ordered police officers to arrest the journalists.
Judges who deliver fair and quick justice are admirable. They save everyone time and effort. They stop flawed cases from dragging on. This affirms that courts are not places for intimidation. Mr. Anyenini emphasizes his views are based on real experiences.