Ghana
Ghana currently has no specific legislation to counter disinformation. However, it has two laws that include restrictions on disinformation: the Criminal Code and the Electronic Communications Act, 2008.
While both laws account for instances in which an individual reasonably believed the information to be true they also raise some concerns from a human rights perspective. Their scope is not fully clear, meaning that authorities could interpret them as giving them power to restrict a wide range of speech; this lack of clarity also means that they may result in restrictions being made which would not pursue aims considered legitimate according to international human rights standards. These laws also carry penalties which are potentially disproportionate in their severity, although this would depend on how they are applied in practice.
We assess these laws in detail below along with three examples of their recent enforcement.
No. Section 208 criminalises the publication or reproduction of any statement, rumour or report which is likely to cause fear and alarm to the public, or to disturb the public peace when knowing or having reason to believe that the statement is false. It is not clear how to determine whether information is “false” or the scope of what is considered “public peace”. Section 208 therefore does not provide clear guidance for individuals and could give an overly wide degree of discretion to those charged with the enforcement of this law.
Potentially. Speech should only be restricted where some clear, objective public harm might be caused. Restrictions made under Section 208 appear to be aimed at protecting public order and public peace. While this may be legitimate, it is unclear whether “public peace” is synonymous with public order. If the potential scope of “public peace” is much broader than “public order”, then restrictions would be illegitimate.
Yes. Section 208(2) provides a defence for the accused when they are able to prove that, prior to publication, they took reasonable measures to verify the accuracy of the statement.
Yes. This is a criminal offence and will be decided by a court of law.
Potentially. Violation of Section 208 is a misdemeanour, but the Criminal Code does not provide for a specific penalty. Section 296 of the Criminal Procedure Code does, however, indicate that under these circumstances the penalty will be imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years. These sanctions would be disproportionate if the maximum penalties are imposed without taking into account the circumstances of the offence. We currently lack information as to how these penalties are imposed in practice, so it is difficult to determine whether they are proportionate.
N/A.
No. Section 76 prohibits an individual from using an electronic communications service to knowingly send false or misleading communications which are “likely to prejudice the efficiency of life-saving service or to endanger the safety of any person, ship, aircraft, vessel or vehicle”. It is not clear how to determine whether information is “false” or the scope of something that is “likely to prejudice the efficiency of life-saving service or to endanger the safety of any person, ship, aircraft, vessel or vehicle”. Section 76 thus fails to provide clear guidance for individuals and could give an overly wide degree of discretion to those charged with the enforcement of this law.
Potentially. Speech should only be restricted where some clear, objective public harm might be caused. The aims pursued under Section 76 appear to be aimed at protecting people’s lives and physical safety, which are legitimate aims. However, there is some risk that the ambiguous wording of this provision may result in illegitimate restrictions.
Yes. Subsection Section 76(2) provides a defence for the accused when they are able to establish that they took reasonable steps to determine whether the communication was false, misleading, reckless or fraudulent.
Yes, this is a criminal offence and will be decided by a court of law.
Potentially. Violation of Section 76 may result in a fine of not more than thirty-six thousand cedis or to a term of imprisonment of not more than five years, or both. If the largest fines and longest prison sentences are imposed without taking into account the circumstances of the offence, then sanctions may be disproportionate.
No. Section 76(3) provides that Section 76(2) does not apply to the operator or provider of a network or service over which a communication is sent.
David Tamakloe, journalist and editor in chief of the privately owned Whatsup News website, was arrested in Accra on 7 October 2020. He was detained overnight and charged the next day for publishing false news. This action stems from a report published in July 2020 which alleged a pre-election crisis in the Ashanti region.
Yes. Tamakloe was arrested and charged with violating Section 208 of the Criminal Code.
No. Restricting speech may be legitimate if made in the pursuance of a legitimate aim, including for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Here, there is no indication that the report posed any risk of public harm. The action would instead appear to be politically motivated and an example of journalist intimidation by the authorities.
No. This action was made in pursuance of an illegitimate aim and is therefore unnecessary and disproportionate.
In March 2023, journalist Noah Dameh was remanded in custody for several days on charges of spreading false publication. He had originally been summoned on charges in May 2022 in relation to a publication he made on Facebook accusing the police of chaining a patient to his hospital bed upon orders from a prominent businessman. This case was dismissed in December 2022, before Noah Dameh was charged with making false publications in 2023. Mr Dameh unfortunately passed away in September 2023.
Yes. Mr Dameh was charged with making false publications under section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).
Unclear. Speech restrictions may be legitimate if made in the pursuance of public order, public morals, public health, national security, or to protect the rights and reputations of others. In this case, Mr Dameh’s reporting may indeed have damaged the reputation of the businessman in question, if the allegations were untrue. However, it is likely that the action was taken to silence police criticism, which would not constitute a legitimate aim.
No. Any action would be disproportionate in the absence of a legitimate aim. However even if there was a legitimate aim and Mr Dameh had unlawfully defamed the businessman, the bringing of criminal charges against Mr Dameh and detaining him for multiple days would be considered a disproportionate response. This is further supported by sources which indicate that Mr Dameh’s detention contributed to his subsequent decline in health and death.
A Ghanaian social media user, Bless Kodjoe Amedegbe, was arrested in May 2020 and is awaiting trial for dissemination of false news. His posts allegedly encouraged Ghanaians to kill police officers and burn President Nana Akufo-Addo’s house. He is also reported to have encouraged the public to defy the COVID-19 related restrictions imposed by the President, which were a hoax for the government to install 5G in the country.
Yes. The individual was arrested for violation of Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008. It is unclear whether he has also been charged under Section 208 of the Criminal Code.
Probably. Restricting speech may be legitimate if made in the pursuance of a legitimate aim, including for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. Here, reports indicate that the social media user made objectively false claims about the correlation between 5G and coronavirus, and encouraged violence in the country against police officers and elected officials. Under these circumstances, the action taken will likely have been in pursuance of a legitimate aim.
Potentially. The proportionality of this action will ultimately depend on the decision of the court, and whether they take into account the specific circumstances of the offence.
Dancehall artist Charles Nii Armah Mensah, popularly known as Shatta Wale, was arrested in October 2021 with two other individuals for creating public fear and panic by publishing false information. The arrest stems from Shatta Wale claiming that he was shot and his life was in danger, which was part of a publicity stunt to promote his new album. He was released on bail after cooperating with authorities, and is awaiting trial.
Yes. Reports indicate that the police arrested Shatta Wale for his alleged involvement in the creation and circulation of information intended to cause fear and panic. While we are unable to obtain the charge sheet, statements by the authorities and reports indicate that the action was taken under Section 208 of the Criminal Code.
Potentially. Restricting speech may be legitimate if made in the pursuance of a legitimate aim, including for respect of the rights or reputations of others, for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. While it seems that Shatta Wale had no intention to cause actual harm, the false information could feasibly have caused panic and distress to the public, particularly in the area where the shooting was supposed to have taken place. Therefore, the action taken by law enforcement to quell the rumour and discourage similar incidents may have been legitimate.
Potentially. The proportionality of this action will ultimately depend on the decision of the court, and whether they take into account the specific circumstances of the offence.