BY Daniel Bampoe
Growing public debate has emerged over Ghana’s laws on false publication and electronic communications following increasing concerns that some security agencies may be applying the laws too broadly in ways that could threaten free expression and democratic freedoms.
Legal analysts, media practitioners and civil rights advocates are increasingly warning that while the laws against false publications were designed to protect public safety and order, their misuse or over-expansive interpretation could create fear, suppress legitimate commentary and weaken public confidence in democratic governance.
At the centre of the debate are Section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775), both of which criminalise certain forms of false communication under specific conditions.
However, critics argue that some recent arrests and investigations suggest that portions of the laws are sometimes being interpreted mechanically without sufficient regard for the actual wording, legal thresholds and safeguards contained within the legislation itself.
Section 208 of Act 29 specifically addresses the publication of false news.
The law states that a person commits an offence if they publish or reproduce a statement, rumour or report that is likely to cause fear and alarm to the public or disturb public peace while knowing, or having reason to believe, that the information is false.
The provision further explains that ignorance alone is not a defence unless the person involved can demonstrate that reasonable efforts were made to verify the accuracy of the information before publication.
Similarly, Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act criminalises knowingly sending false or misleading electronic communications that are likely to prejudice life-saving services or endanger public safety.
The law also extends liability to persons who fail to take reasonable steps to determine whether information being circulated electronically is false, misleading or reckless.
Legal commentators insist that a careful reading of both laws shows they were never intended to criminalise every false statement or inaccurate public comment.
Rather, the focus of the legislation is on false communications that carry harmful consequences such as causing public panic, threatening safety, disrupting emergency services or disturbing public peace.
According to critics of recent enforcement actions, the concern should therefore not primarily be about the existence of the laws themselves, but rather how some security actors allegedly apply them without adequately considering the legal requirements relating to intent, recklessness, harmful consequences and reasonable verification efforts.
They argue that broad and indiscriminate application of these provisions could expose ordinary citizens, journalists, activists and political commentators to arbitrary arrests even in situations where inaccurate statements were made without malicious intent.
Some legal experts have further pointed out that certain disputes involving reputational harm or misinformation may be more appropriately handled as civil matters rather than criminal offences.
The debate has intensified in recent years alongside the rapid growth of social media usage in Ghana, where political commentary, citizen journalism and digital activism have significantly expanded public participation in national discourse.
However, the rise of online misinformation, political propaganda and inflammatory content has also increased pressure on security agencies and regulators to monitor and control harmful communications.
