Legal scholar and social commentator Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has criticised the Ghana Police Service over the prosecution of Ghana’s self-acclaimed modern-day Noah, Evans Eshun, popularly known as Ebo Noah.

In an elaborate post shared on Facebook on January 2, 2026, Kwaku Azar pointed out that the charges the police prosecutors have levelled against Ebo Noah, who was arrested for claiming that the world would be destroyed by a flood on December 25, 2025, are unconstitutional.

He explained that the charges against the accused person are under Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775), but these laws do not criminalise remarks made by people.

“What, then, does Section 76 actually criminalise? The law provides: ‘A person who, by means of an electronic communications service, knowingly sends a communication which is false or misleading and likely to prejudice the efficiency of a life-saving service or to endanger the safety of any person, ship, aircraft, vessel or vehicle commits an offence.’

“Section 76 does not create a general offence of false speech. Parliament deliberately limited criminal liability to false electronic communications that pose a public-safety risk, specifically those that interfere with life-saving services or endanger physical safety,” he wrote.

He added, “The provision targets emergency hoaxes and communications that divert or disrupt rescue systems. That narrow focus is missing from the charge as pleaded.”

Doomsday ‘scammer’ Ebo Noah arrested

The legal luminary also pointed out that the police even failed to prove that the action of Ebo Noah really meets the threshold of Section 76 of Act 775.

“The charge sheet does not allege that any life-saving service was mobilised, misled, or disrupted. It does not claim that emergency responders were diverted, that evacuation efforts were triggered, or that anyone’s physical safety was endangered. No victim is identified. No public complaint is cited. No concrete harm is described.

“Instead, the charge relies on conclusory language, asserting an ‘intent to cause fear and panic’ and a likelihood of ‘fear and alarm’ without pleading facts to support those conclusions.

In law, however, intent is inferred from conduct, not labels. The charge alleges no calls for evacuation, no instructions to panic, no solicitation of money, no crowd mobilisation, and no disruption of public services,” he said.

Read his full write-up below:

GOGO Demurs: Why the Noah Charge Misses the Law

The charge sheet against Evans Eshun, popularly known as “Ebo Noah,” is clear.

The State alleges that he published false statements on TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook predicting that the world would be destroyed by a flood on December 25 and claiming that he was building an ark.

According to the charge, these statements were made with the intent to cause fear and panic and were likely to alarm the public. On that basis, he has been charged under Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775).

Let me be clear at the outset: GOGO does not endorse these claims, these actions, or such prophecies. False predictions of catastrophe are irresponsible and deserve firm public rejection.

But disapproval is not a substitute for law, and criminal prosecution must still meet the threshold Parliament set.

What, then, does Section 76 actually criminalize?

The law provides:

“A person who by means of electronic communications service, knowingly sends a communication which is false or misleading and likely to prejudice the efficiency of life-saving service or to endanger the safety of any person, ship, aircraft, vessel or vehicle commits an offence.”

Section 76 does not create a general offence of false speech. Parliament deliberately limited criminal liability to false electronic communications that pose a public-safety risk, specifically, those that interfere with life-saving services or endanger physical safety.

The provision targets emergency hoaxes and communications that divert or disrupt rescue systems.

That narrow focus is missing from the charge as pleaded.

The charge sheet does not allege that any life-saving service was mobilised, misled, or disrupted. It does not claim that emergency responders were diverted, that evacuation efforts were triggered, or that anyone’s physical safety was endangered. No victim is identified. No public complaint is cited. No concrete harm is described.

Instead, the charge relies on conclusory language, asserting an “intent to cause fear and panic” and a likelihood of “fear and alarm” without pleading facts to support those conclusions.

In law, however, intent is inferred from conduct, not labels. The charge alleges no calls for evacuation, no instructions to panic, no solicitation of money, no crowd mobilisation, and no disruption of public services.

Simply predicting catastrophe, even falsely or irresponsibly, does not automatically establish criminal intent.

The claim that the speech was “likely” to cause fear is equally speculative. The charge does not allege audience size, public reaction, panic consequences, or any real-world impact. Criminal liability, especially for speech, cannot rest on conjecture.

There is also a deeper constitutional concern. Claims about an impending apocalypse and an ark fall within the realm of prophetic, religious, or fantastical expression.

Unless such speech is coupled with fraud, coercion, or real-world disruption, criminal prosecution risks turning the State into an arbiter of belief. That is not what Section 76 authorises, and it is not what the Constitution permits.

The issue here is not whether the speech was false, strange, or irresponsible. It is whether the law cited actually fits the conduct alleged.

On the face of the charge sheet, it does not. Section 76 was enacted to protect emergency systems and public safety, not to punish absurdity or police belief.

Citing a law is not the same as satisfying it. If Section 76 can be stretched to cover this case, then false ideas become police matters rather than social ones.

And once that line is crossed, freedom of expression depends not on constitutional principle, but on official tolerance.

PS: Yɛde post no bɛto hɔ. Yɛnyɛ comprehension consultants.

Da Yie!

BAI

Meanwhile, watch as Acting Defence Minister Ato Forson inaugurates 9-Member Ministerial Advisory Board

The management of the University of Ghana (UG) has moved to distance itself from the controversial 25% hike in academic fees for the 2025/2026 academic year.

University authorities contend that the staggering increments—which have seen some freshman bills jump by over 30%—are almost entirely driven by third-party levies introduced by student governance bodies, not the central administration.

The clarification aims to defuse a brewing crisis on the Legon campus, where provisional fee schedules recently revealed that Level 100 Humanities students are now expected to pay GH¢3,110, up from GH¢2,319 last year.

Speaking in an interview with Citi News, the Pro Vice-Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, Professor Gordon Awandare, emphasised that the university has limited oversight over the specific charges added by the Students’ Representative Council (SRC) and the Graduate Students’ Association of Ghana (GRASAG).

“What is being reported as fee increases relates to third-party fees imposed by student leadership. These are fees approved through their own governance structures and communicated to students over two weeks ago. University management did not impose these fees. If students have issues with these charges, they should take them up with their SRC or GRASAG leadership. These fees are meant to support student programmes and activities,” Professor Awandare explained.

The university administration insists that students should look inward at their elected representatives, who allegedly adjusted their own funding components to reflect the rising costs of running student unions and legacies.

According to the university’s breakdown, the total third-party component has swelled significantly this year. While the core academic facility user fee has remained relatively stable, the auxiliary levies have reached new heights.

Third-Party Item (Undergrad)	Amount (GH¢)
SRC Hostel Development Levy	300
75th Anniversary Legacy Project	100
Telecel Data Package (Freshers)	312
SRC Welfare Dues	50
Reprographic Fees	5
Total (Freshmen)	767

For postgraduate students, the GRASAG components similarly include a Development Levy (GH¢250) and the Legacy Project (GH¢100), totalling GH¢385 in third-party additions.

Despite the outcry, Professor Awandare argued that the base fees charged by Ghana’s premier university are still “modest” when weighed against the current economic climate of high inflation and soaring utility costs.

“When you look at the fees—about GH¢2,000 for an entire academic year at Ghana’s premier university—it is difficult to describe them as excessive. Utilities and operational costs have increased significantly, yet university fees have largely remained unchanged since 2022. Even the students themselves recognise that the previous fee levels were no longer realistic under current economic conditions, which is why they have adjusted their component of the fees to match the cost of running their activities,” he added.

Management highlighted that while the university has absorbed rising costs for two years, student leaders concluded that their specific programmes—such as the ambitious SRC Hostel Development project—could no longer be sustained without a significant revenue boost.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.

A man who was reported missing on Thursday, [December 25, 2025], has been found dead under disturbing circumstances in a bush at Bapilla, a community in the Talensi District of the Upper East Region.

The incident has sent shockwaves through Dagliga in the Nabdam District and surrounding communities.

The deceased, identified as Mosobil Levyang, 41, a tricycle rider popularly known as Capito, is a native of the Dagliga community in the Nabdam District.

He reportedly left his family home at Dagliga Lebyang House in mid-December 2025 to travel to Zomeela in search of a job.

On December 25, 2025, his colleagues informed the family of his absence from their base, and after three days without any contact, the family reported him as a missing person and appealed to the public for information on his whereabouts.

An extensive search across neighbouring towns and villages, did not yield results until Wednesday, [December 31, 2025], when his body was discovered in a bush at Bapilla in the Talensi District.

The body was reportedly found naked, with visible bruises, a swollen jaw and a pierced stomach, leading the family to suspect foul play.

“The injuries on his body show that something terrible happened to him. We strongly believe he was attacked, and we are demanding justice for our brother,” a family member told Graphic Online’s Gilbert Azeem Tiroog.

The incident has generated fear and anger among residents of Dagliga and nearby communities, with many calling for a thorough investigation into the matter to ensure accountability and deter similar incidents.

Some community members also appealed to security agencies to intensify patrols, especially in the Talensi East area, where there have been increasing robbery cases over the years.

The body of the deceased was laid to rest on Wednesday, [December 31, 2025] in accordance with local customs, amid grief and heightened tension within the community.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.

play videoDavid Oscar’s new song is specially for the people of Koforidua

Ghanaian reggae sensation, David Oscar Dogbe, has gifted the people of Koforidua a musical tribute that resonates with home-grown pride.

The acclaimed musician has announced the release of his latest single, an ode to the indigens of Koforidua in the Eastern Region of Ghana dubbed ‘Good Evening Koforidua.’

Scheduled to drop on January 2, 2026, the song ‘Good Evening Koforidua’ is already being hailed as a potential anthem for the city, blending soulful reggae rhythms with a deep sense of patriotism.

The upcoming banger does more than provide a catchy beat; it serves as a lyrical tour of Koforidua’s most iconic landmarks and neighborhoods.

By exploring the popular areas of the town, Oscar seeks to connect with listeners on a personal level, evoking memories of the streets and sounds that define the local experience.

Beyond the aesthetics, the song carries a powerful social message.

It is designed to whip up communal love among residents.

Strengthen the bond between the people and their homeland.

Foster a spirit of unity aimed at the collective development of the city.

While the song is a celebration for those currently residing in the Eastern Regional capital, it also serves as a clarion call to Koforidua indigens living across Ghana and in the diaspora.

Oscar uses his platform to urge successful sons and daughters of the soil to “look back and give back.”

The track emphasises that the future growth of Koforidua depends on the contributions and love of its people, no matter where they are in the world.

“This isn’t just a song; it’s a movement for our hometown. I want every person from Koforidua to feel that pulse of pride and the urge to contribute to our beautiful town,”  David Oscar asserted.

Enjoy this new one from David Oscar as the new chapter of 2026 open for every blessed soul.