By Judith Ama AFENYI-DONKOR Esq.,
Truth is sacred. Yet in the wrong hands, it can become a weapon. Ghana’s Parliament is set to debate the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, spearheaded by Honourable Sam George, the Minister for Communication, Digital Technology, and Innovations.
It aims to protect democracy from lies, half-truths, and online propaganda widely circulated, spreading rapidly across digital platforms and influencing public opinion.
But the real challenge lies in ensuring that the law guards the truth without becoming a tool for suppression and who determines what constitutes truth or half-truth is an issue that must be assessed.
In today’s digital age, a single tweet, Facebook post, or WhatsApp broadcast can reach thousands within minutes. This connectivity has empowered citizens but also unleashed a wave of falsehoods. Ghana has felt the sting: during COVID-19, viral misinformation promoted dangerous “cures” like drinking alcohol or inhaling steam, leading some to avoid real medical care; during Ghana’s 2020 elections, fabricated results circulated online, stirring tension; rumours during Ghana’s recent banking crisis triggered panic that nearly destabilized some financial institutions. These were not harmless jokes; they were lies with real-world consequences.
Artificial Intelligence: The Modern Amplifier
Artificial intelligence has exacerbated the problem. Deepfake videos and AI-generated images blur the line between truth and deception. A BBC (2023) report indicated a surge in deepfake videos of world leaders, while a CNN (2024) report highlighted AI-generated images of the Ukraine war fueling propaganda.
Locally, JoyNews (2024) documented fabricated headlines attributed to trusted media, misleading the public. AI does not just spread lies; it manufactures them, enabling political propaganda, financial scams, and character assassination at unprecedented speed, albeit in its critical role in the development agenda of persons, including governments. Yet while technology evolves rapidly, Ghana’s legal frameworks seem to struggle to keep pace.
Existing Legal Frameworks: Adequate or Outdated?
Ghana has legal mechanisms addressing false information. Article 21 of the 1992 Constitution guarantees freedom of speech. Article 164 of the 1992 Constitution permits limited restrictions for national security, public order, morality, and the rights of others.
Section 185 and 208 of the Criminal and Other Offenses Act, 1960 (Act 29), criminalize publishing false news that may cause fear or disturb public peace, while Sections 74 and 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775), punish transmitting false information over electronic networks or giving misleading information to authorities, the Cybersecurity Act, 2020 regulate false statements, electronic misinformation, and online sexual offenses.
The Right to Information Act, 2019 (Act 989) allows citizens to verify public claims, while common law defamation provides civil remedies for harm caused by false statements.The Electronic Transactions Act, 2008 (Act 772) ensure that crimes done online are treated the same as those done offline.
It covers hacking, altering records, and intercepting communications. Section 123 of Act 772 acts as a catch-all rule so offences like fraud, forgery, and defamation also apply online. This means false or misleading information spread digitally can be punished under the law.
Yet gaps persist. Many of Ghana’s current laws were drafted long before the rise of social media, artificial intelligence, and the democratization of information sharing. Section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act remains vague, risking misuse against journalists while failing to address AI-driven disinformation.
The Right to Information Act improves transparency but lacks proactive disclosure, leaving space for falsehoods to spread faster than facts. The Cybersecurity Act focuses narrowly on fraud and hacking, overlooking deepfakes and coordinated propaganda. Together, these gaps show that Ghana’s legal tools are ill-fitted for the scale, speed, and sophistication of today’s information disorder.
International and Constitutional Context
Article 21 of the 1992 Constitution aligns with global norms. Articles 18 and 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Articles 19(3) and 20 of the ICCPR, protect free expression while permitting limitations for national security, public order, public health, or the rights of others.
Article 20 prohibits propaganda for war and incitement to racial, national, or religious hatred. These frameworks emphasize that free speech carries responsibilities, a principle central to regulating misinformation without undermining freedom.
Is there a Case for the Bill?
Proponents argue that the bill offers an opportunity to modernize Ghana’s legal framework, bringing clarity while focusing solely on harmful content.
By clearly distinguishing between misinformation, false information spread unintentionally, and disinformation, deliberate lies designed to deceive, the law could specifically address dangerous falsehoods, including fake cures, fabricated election results, and panic-inducing rumors. Crucially, satire, opinion, and fair criticism should remain protected.
The legislation could also require social media platforms to uphold transparency obligations and improve access to verified information. Combined with nationwide digital literacy initiatives, the law could equip citizens to critically evaluate information, make informed decisions, and prevent falsehoods from poisoning public discourse, destabilizing institutions, or undermining democratic processes.
The Case Against the Bill
Critics caution that the law risks duplicating existing remedies while granting the state excessive authority to define “truth.” Broad criminal provisions could be misused against journalists, activists, or political opponents. Ghana already has constitutional safeguards, statutory provisions, civil remedies, and transparency laws.
The key challenges lie in enforcement, public education, and digital literacy rather than the absence of law. Expanding criminal liability could adversely impact free expression, stifle investigative journalism, and weaken democracy. Questions also arise about which state institution would enforce the law, and whether a new enforcement body would be required, or whether the new law would be part of the embodiment of the criminal justice system.
Human Consequences
Consider a mother in Kumasi trusting a viral WhatsApp cure, giving it to her children instead of seeking medical care. Or a young man in Tamale spreading false election results, sparking local tension. Now imagine an investigative journalist exposing corruption, only to be accused of “disinformation” under a poorly drafted law. These examples highlight the dual nature of the challenge: misinformation harms the public, but poorly framed legislation could harm democracy itself.
Rights at the Heart of the Debate
Article 21 of the 1992 Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, the lifeblood of democracy. Any law touching speech must protect citizens without curtailing their freedoms. The core question is: who controls truth in Ghana? Will it remain in the hands of the people through open debate, or be concentrated in the state’s hands, empowered to limit expression? Or is it for the courts to determine?
The Dilemma
Ghana’s struggle against misinformation and disinformation presents a profound dilemma. On one hand, falsehoods spread with alarming speed, threatening public health, undermining electoral integrity, and straining social cohesion. On the other, the danger of overregulation looms large, with the potential to erode freedoms that form the foundation of democratic life.
The question, therefore, extends beyond the legal sphere into the very fabric of society. Whether the bill is embraced or rejected, its evaluation will ultimately depend on a broad conversation among citizens, journalists, civil society actors, and legal experts. Together, they must determine how Ghana can strike the delicate balance between protecting truth and safeguarding freedom.
What Would Make the Law Effective, should it be passed?
If enacted, the law must be drafted with clarity and precision. It should target only falsehoods that cause serious harm to public health, safety, or democracy, while protecting legitimate expression.
Its enforcement should be entrusted to an independent oversight council composed of representatives from the media, civil society, academia, and the judiciary. Such a body, equipped with legal authority, independent funding, and an appeals process, would ensure transparency and protect free expression.
The legislation should also be accompanied by nationwide digital literacy programs, equipping citizens to verify and fact-check information before sharing. At the same time, explicit protections must be guaranteed for satire, opinion, and fair criticism, so that the law does not become an instrument of censorship.
Conclusion
Ghana stands at a crossroads. One path could lead to a law that curbs harmful lies while safeguarding freedom. The other could risk a statute that stifles dissent and chills journalism. False information spreads panic, destabilizes democracies, and can cost lives. But freedom of expression is the soil in which truth grows.
The challenge is to defend truth without killing freedom, leaving the final verdict to public discourse and democratic engagement. The question before us is simple yet profound: in our fight against lies, are we prepared to sacrifice the very freedom that makes truth possible?
The writer is a Lawyer at Ghartey & Ghartey Law Firm, specializing in Information Technology Law, Human Rights Law, and Family Law
Post Views: 15
