The issue of hate speech in Ghana has sparked a national debate, with President John Dramani Mahama recently directing the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) and Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) to convene a national stakeholder engagement on the matter. The proposed engagement aims to bring together various stakeholders, including the National Media Commission (NMC), Ghana Police Service, civil society, and digital platforms, to discuss hate speech, abusive online content, and responsible digital communication. This initiative seeks to address the growing concern of harmful speech in the country.
The National Media Commission, established under Chapter 12 of the 1992 Constitution, has a specific mandate to promote and ensure the freedom and independence of the media. The Commission's functions include taking measures to ensure the highest journalistic standards, investigating and mediating complaints against or by the press, and performing other functions prescribed by law. Given its constitutional role, the NMC's involvement in the national stakeholder engagement on hate speech is crucial. The question remains whether the NMC should be merely a participant or take a central institutional role in addressing the issue.
The Constitution guarantees media freedom and independence, prohibiting censorship and governmental interference with editorial opinions and views. Article 162 protects media organisations from governmental interference, while Article 167 spells out the NMC's functions. The Commission's independence is further safeguarded by Article 172, which states that it is not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority in performing its functions. This constitutional architecture is highly relevant to the present debate on hate speech and the role of the NMC.
The challenge before Ghana is not simply how to suppress harmful speech, but how to create a system that can simultaneously protect freedom of expression, maintain professional standards, provide redress for abuses, and prevent the State from becoming the ultimate arbiter of permissible criticism. The NMC's constitutional role becomes difficult to ignore in this context. The proposed process may need reconsideration to ensure the NMC provides the constitutional and institutional leadership, while other stakeholders contribute expertise and practical perspectives.
The problem of hate speech in Ghana is part of a broader cluster of related issues, including incitement, threats, misinformation, disinformation, defamation, abusive communication, and legitimate criticism. These categories should not be collapsed into one, as they require distinct approaches. Calling a government's economic policy disastrous is criticism, while encouraging people to attack a community because of its ethnicity is an entirely different matter. A credible threat against an individual is also different from legitimate criticism.
There is an uncomfortable reality that must be confronted: every government has an interest in reducing criticism of itself. However, this does not mean that every government will abuse speech laws. The institutional framework must be designed on the assumption that political power can change hands. A law or regulatory mechanism that appears harmless when a preferred political party controls government can become considerably less comfortable when the opposition takes power.
Ghana has already experienced disputes over speech-related arrests and prosecutions, with the MFWA criticizing the criminalization of speech, particularly the use of Section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act and Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act. The organisation argues that civil remedies, including rejoinders, NMC processes, and civil defamation actions, should generally be used instead of criminal prosecution.
Key points
- The National Media Commission should play a central role in addressing hate speech concerns in Ghana.
- The issue of hate speech is part of a broader cluster of related problems that require distinct approaches.
- The institutional framework for addressing hate speech must be designed to prevent the State from becoming the ultimate arbiter of permissible criticism.
