Free speech without responsibility? - Growing crisis of reckless political expression in Ghana

One of the greatest achievements of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana is the protection of freedom of speech and expression under Article 21(1)(a). 

That constitutional guarantee remains one of the strongest pillars of Ghana’s democratic journey and one of the clearest distinctions between constitutional governance and authoritarian rule.

The constitution states plainly that every person shall have: “Freedom of speech and expression, which shall include freedom of the press and other media.”

This provision gives citizens, journalists, academics, political actors and ordinary Ghanaians the constitutional confidence to question authority, criticise the government, challenge institutions and participate openly in national discourse without fear.

It strengthened democratic accountability and deepened public participation in governance.

Yet, a serious national question continues to confront us today, which is: What becomes of free speech when it is detached from responsibility?

Urgent

This question has become increasingly urgent in the era of social media activism, where public discourse is now dominated less by reasoned engagement and more by emotional outrage, insults, misinformation, disinformation and sometimes, reckless verbal attacks.

Political debate in Ghana is gradually shifting from principled disagreement into a dangerous culture of naked insults, sustained abuse and organised hostility.

Many now mistake constitutional freedom for unlimited licence.

This, I believe, was never the intention of the framers of the 1992 Constitution.

Rights under the Constitution do not exist in isolation.

Every constitutional democracy balances liberty with responsibility, freedom with restraint and rights with public order.

This is where Section 208 of the Criminal and Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) becomes relevant.

Section 208 criminalises offensive conduct conducive to breaches of the peace.

In practical terms, the law seeks to prevent acts, publications, statements or behaviour likely to provoke violence, disturb public peace or incite disorder.

Critics

Critics often argue that such provisions can threaten free expression and, therefore, must leave the books.

That concern is legitimate and should never be dismissed lightly. 

Indeed, history teaches that vague public order laws can sometimes be abused to intimidate critics or suppress opposition voices.

However, it is equally dangerous to pretend that freedom of speech means freedom from responsibility. 

I disagree with the outright repeal of Section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act.

A citizen has every constitutional right to criticise the President, question judicial decisions, challenge government policy, or oppose state institutions.

Democracy demands such openness. 

But constitutional protection becomes morally and legally weaker where speech degenerates into deliberate falsehoods, vulgar abuse, threats, tribal incitement, character assassination or sustained online provocation capable of undermining public peace.

The current social media environment has amplified this danger significantly. Most platforms reward outrage more than wisdom.

Attention is now driven by insults rather than ideas.

Many political activists, influencers and commentators increasingly pursue virality at the expense of truth, decency and national cohesion.

In some instances, public discourse has descended into pure hostility, where disagreement is no longer answered with argument but with humiliation, ridicule and coordinated abuse.

This trend is unhealthy for constitutional democracy. No serious democracy can survive where every disagreement becomes a battlefield of insults. 

Challenge

The real constitutional challenge, therefore, is to balance rights with responsibilities.

Article 21(1)(a) exists to protect liberty.

Section 208 exists to preserve public peace and responsible conduct.

Neither provision should destroy the other. 

The task of constitutional governance is to maintain equilibrium between democratic freedom and civic responsibility.

Free speech, as a matter of principle, must remain protected.

But responsible speech must also remain valued and guarded.

A mature democracy is not measured merely by how loudly its citizens speak, but also by how wisely, truthfully and responsibly they use that freedom.

Freedom without responsibility descends into chaos, just as authority without tolerance for criticism also descends into authoritarianism.

The future stability of Ghana’s democracy, therefore, may well depend on whether we can recognise the differences between rights and responsibilities, but it certainly does not lie in disintegrating a section of its laws.

The wirter is a freelance journalist.