Introduction
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Existing Legal Frameworks: Adequate or Outdated?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?
Mrs. Judith Ama Afenyi-Donkor Esq., Lawyer at Ghartey & Ghartey Law Firm, specializing in Information Technology Law, Human Rights Law, and Family Law