Executive Director of the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA), Sulemana Braimah, has cautioned that Ghana risks reintroducing the repealed criminal libel law “through the back door” if the police continue arresting individuals over alleged false publications instead of allowing civil legal processes to address such disputes.
Speaking on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show on Monday, July 20, during a discussion on press freedom following the one-year jail sentence imposed on a TikToker for publishing false information, Mr Braimah argued that recent police actions mirror the criminal libel regime abolished more than two decades ago.
Civil Remedies Should Prevail
Mr Braimah cited the arrest of broadcaster Kwabena Bobie Ansah, who was accused of making false claims about former First Lady Rebecca Akufo-Addo, as an example of what he described as an inappropriate use of police powers.
“I remember when the police arrested Kwabena Bobie Ansah, and the claim was that he had put out information about the former First Lady, Mrs Rebecca Akufo-Addo, that some state lands had been acquired for a foundation and so on, and it was said to be false information,” he said.
According to him, the MFWA opposed the arrest because existing civil mechanisms already provide remedies for alleged defamation.
“Our position was that if the First Lady felt defamed, she had a choice to either go to the National Media Commission, or demand a retraction and apology, or do a rejoinder, or go to court and sue for defamation,” he said.
“But for the police to storm a radio station, pick up a presenter on the basis that he had put out information that was false, was clearly untenable.”
‘Criminal Libel Through the Back Door’
Mr Braimah argued that such arrests undermine the purpose of repealing Ghana’s criminal libel law.
“Then really, what is the difference between not having the criminal libel law and having the criminal libel law?” he asked.
He explained that under the former law, allegedly defamatory statements became criminal offences prosecuted by the state rather than civil disputes between private parties.
“The essence of the criminal libel law would be that if you say something or you defame a minister, it becomes the Republic versus you instead of the minister versus you,” he said.
“We thought, why should we have a law that criminalises expression? And so we took it out.”
He warned that continued police involvement in such cases could effectively restore the repealed law.
“If this continues, then we are back to criminal libel law through the back door. And I don’t think that is what we intended when we were repealing the criminal libel law,” he stated.
Calls for Broader Strategy
Mr Braimah maintained that individuals who believe they have been defamed should pursue civil remedies through the courts or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms rather than criminal prosecution.
“If people feel offended, they can go to court, and the court, at the end of the day, if it feels that what was done was defamatory, whatever sanctions can be imposed,” he said.
He also questioned what he described as selective enforcement against individuals accused of spreading false information, noting that false claims are frequently made on mainstream media platforms without attracting similar police action.
“People are sitting on the radio every day, in the name of political debate, peddling falsehoods about people every day. Is it because those ones are mainstream media, so the police don’t see them or they don’t hear them?” he asked.
Mr Braimah argued that it would be impractical for the police to monitor every statement made across radio, television and social media.
“I don’t think that the police will have the capacity to police public commentary. That is the problem,” he said.
Platform Accountability
He called for a comprehensive national framework to tackle misinformation, stressing that arrests alone would not solve the problem.
“The state must respond in terms of what is allowed, what is not allowed… the civil remedies are still available. If people feel offended and they think they want to go to court instead of the National Media Commission or demand retraction and apology, that option is there,” he said.
Mr Braimah also urged greater accountability for social media platforms, arguing that many individuals publish abusive or false content from outside Ghana without consequences.
“We need to begin to have a very serious conversation about the responsibilities of the platforms,” he said.
Referring to commentator Kelvin Taylor, he questioned whether Ghana’s political leaders were genuinely committed to addressing abusive online content.
“When he came to town, what happened? He was like a hero to people in the ruling party today. Are we happy with what he does?” he asked.
He warned that relying solely on arrests and imprisonment would encourage offenders to relocate their activities outside Ghana.
“If we don’t deal with these issues comprehensively, yes, we may think that we are arresting people today and jailing them. But the next thing that will happen is that somebody will set up something in Côte d’Ivoire or in the Netherlands and decide to use it to attack people and incite people,” he cautioned.
