Accra: Your sudden awakening to the sanctity of free speech would be commendable if it were not so deeply steeped in historical revisionism and political convenience. To label President John Dramani Mahama a 'tyrant' or accuse him of orchestrating a military-style crackdown is not only a gross exaggeration, but also a legally flawed argument that misinterprets the constitutional separation of powers in Ghana.
According to Ghana Web, the independence of the judiciary and law enforcement is a fundamental principle enshrined in Article 125 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. The judiciary operates independently and is subject only to the Constitution. The police and state prosecutors initiate criminal proceedings based on existing statutory laws, which are designed to maintain public order rather than serve the personal interests of the President. When individuals are arrested under provisions like Section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), for publishing false news likely to cause fear and panic, they undergo due legal process. If such charges lack substance, the courts, independent of the executive, will dismiss them, as is the norm in any functioning democracy.
The source also highlights the irony in presenting oneself as a neutral arbiter of truth. In the lead-up to the 2016 elections, certain reportage was criticized for being heavily slanted and amplifying sensational narratives against the Mahama administration. Many of these narratives have since been shown to be exaggerated or unfounded. The subsequent NPP administration witnessed troubling incidents affecting press freedom, including the tragic killing of journalist Ahmed Suale and the closure of some media outlets. Against this backdrop, attempts to shift blame back onto President Mahama raise questions of consistency and fairness.
Freedom of speech, while a cornerstone of democracy, is not absolute. Article 21(2) of the 1992 Constitution states that such freedoms are subject to laws reasonably necessary in the interest of national security, public safety, and public order. There is a legal distinction between legitimate political criticism and the deliberate dissemination of false information intended to provoke fear, public disorder, or unrest. Defamation and the intentional publication of false news are actionable under the law. Individuals operating at the margins of legality under the guise of 'harmless commentary' must be prepared to account for their actions within the legal framework.
President Mahama's record as a democratic and tolerant leader is well documented and does not require validation from selective critics. Journalists and political actors who violate statutory laws must be prepared to face the consequences within the legal system. It is crucial not to confuse the lawful enforcement of public order by independent state institutions with executive tyranny. Attempts to hold the President personally responsible for the legal consequences of alleged reckless speech misrepresent how constitutional governance operates.