Category: Daily Guide Network

More than 1,900 years ago, the Roman poet, Juvenal, coined a phrase that has survived the rise and fall of empires, revolutions and political systems: panem et circenses – ‘bread and circuses.’

Juvenal was lamenting a Roman society in which citizens who had once taken an active interest in political power appeared increasingly satisfied with material provisions and public entertainment.

His concern was deeper than food and games.

It was about what happens to a society when spectacle becomes more compelling than substance and immediate gratification begins to replace serious civic engagement.

That ancient metaphor offers a provocative lens through which to examine Ghana today.

There is no denying that the government has achieved significant progress on some major macroeconomic indicators.

Inflation has fallen dramatically, with headline inflation at 5.0 percent in August 2026. The IMF has acknowledged substantial gains in macroeconomic stabilisation and debt sustainability, while the Bank of Ghana has continued to tighten liquidity conditions.

But there is another Ghana beyond the headline inflation figure.

What does 5 percent inflation mean to the mother who still has to find money for food, transport, school expenses and utility bills?

What does falling inflation mean to the taxi driver who has to put GHS17-plus petrol per litre into his tank?

What does macroeconomic stability mean to the commercial vehicle operator buying diesel at around GHS19 per litre?

And what does it mean to the ordinary commuter who has now had to absorb an 8 per cent increase in public transport fares?

The fare increase took effect on September 26 following consultations between the transport unions and the Ministry of Transport. The unions had initially pushed for a substantially higher adjustment because of rising operating costs.

Indeed, the latest inflation data show that housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels remain the single largest contributor to headline inflation, accounting for 29.5 per cent. Transport contributed another 13.2 percent, while services inflation stood at 8.6 percent.

These are not projections. They are the prices and costs confronting Ghanaians now. And this is where Juvenal’s bread and circuses becomes particularly relevant.

Because while the economic managers can legitimately point to falling inflation, the ordinary Ghanaian is still asking a much more basic question:

‘Can I afford my life?’

The inflation rate measures the rate at which prices are changing. It does not magically return the prices of food, transport, rent, utilities and other necessities to the levels Ghanaians enjoyed several years ago.

The World Bank itself has acknowledged that rising electricity tariffs, strains in the cocoa sector and large infrastructure financing needs continue to weigh on household welfare despite the improvement in Ghana’s macroeconomic indicators.

So, while the numbers on the macroeconomic dashboard may look considerably better, the kitchen-table economy remains a different story.

And what is occupying the national conversation?

Increasingly, it is social-media insults, political abuse, TikTok personalities, online confrontations and police arrests.

The Police have investigated and arrested individuals over alleged false news, incitement, threats and offensive online conduct. The controversy surrounding TikToker ‘Ghana Jollof’, for instance, has generated enormous public discussion, including the arrest of senior nurse, Salomey Awiti Bafoh.

Nobody should argue that criminal conduct should be ignored simply because it happens on social media.

But there is a bigger question:

Why does a country struggling with unemployment, high living costs, energy-sector liabilities, cocoa financing problems, narcotic drug issues and youth unemployment so readily surrender its public conversation to insults and online personalities?

Why are we spending so much national energy debating who insulted whom?

Why political arguments are increasingly reduced to who said what on Facebook, TikTok or X?

Why does an offensive social-media post sometimes generate more national outrage than the plight of the unemployed young Ghanaian?

And why can the country spend days debating an insult while structural problems quietly continue?

These are the questions that should worry us.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE JOBS?

Unemployment remains one of the country’s biggest concerns.

An IEA survey reported that 46 percent of respondents identified unemployment as the most pressing problem facing Ghana, while 91 percent expressed at least some anxiety about the cost of living. Illegal mining was identified by 30 per cent as the second major concern. So why isn’t the national conversation dominated by jobs?

Why aren’t we having a sustained debate about how Ghana will create productive employment for its young population?

Why should a young graduate spend hours following political insults on social media when what he or she desperately needs is a job?

That is the modern circus.

WHAT ABOUT GALAMSEY?

Illegal mining continues to threaten Ghana’s water bodies, forests and agricultural land.

The public has heard repeated commitments to fighting galamsey. But the environmental consequences remain a national concern.

Why does a TikTok controversy sometimes command more attention than polluted water bodies?

Why are we arguing about personalities while the country’s natural resources continue to come under pressure? And what happens when the polluted river eventually reaches the tap?

WHAT ABOUT COCOA?

Ghana’s cocoa sector is confronting serious financial and structural difficulties. The IMF has documented the severe deterioration in COCOBOD’s cash flow following the sharp fall in international cocoa prices, with unsold stocks and liquidity pressures adding to the problem.

There have also been concerns about financing for cocoa purchases. So why isn’t cocoa receiving the same intensity of public debate as social-media quarrels?

What happens to the cocoa farmer if buyers cannot secure adequate financing? What happens to Ghana’s foreign-exchange earnings if the cocoa sector weakens? These are questions with consequences far beyond one viral video.

WHAT ABOUT NARCOTIC DRUGS?

Then there is Ghana’s growing battle against narcotic drugs. The fight against drug trafficking and abuse is too serious to be reduced to political point-scoring.

Narcotics destroy lives, damage families, fuel crime and undermine the prospects of young people. NACOC therefore has an important responsibility to enforce the law, disrupt trafficking networks and protect the public.

But even here, the question is one of national attention and priorities.

Recent political exchanges over NACOC have generated considerable public attention, with the Majority in Parliament highlighting a sharp increase in arrests under the Mahama administration and presenting the figures as evidence of intensified enforcement.

The question, however, should go beyond the number of arrests.

How much narcotics are actually reaching Ghana’s streets?

How many young people are being drawn into drug abuse?

How effective are rehabilitation and prevention programmes?

How much cocaine, cannabis, tramadol and other controlled substances are entering the country?

Who are financing the trafficking networks?

Where are the proceeds going?

And, perhaps most importantly, why are young Ghanaians increasingly vulnerable to the drug trade in the first place?

These questions deserve sustained national attention. An arrest statistic may demonstrate enforcement activity, but it does not by itself tell the public whether the drug problem is shrinking. That is the distinction between activity and outcome.

A country could record thousands of arrests and still have a serious narcotics problem if trafficking networks remain profitable, demand remains high and young people continue to enter the drug market.

So, while the public debates who has been arrested and which political side deserves credit, the bigger questions remain:

Are Ghana’s borders sufficiently protected?

Are drug kingpins and financiers being successfully identified and prosecuted?

Are assets acquired from narcotics proceeds being traced and recovered?

Are schools and communities receiving adequate prevention and education?

And are young people being given enough economic opportunities to make the drug trade less attractive?

These are much harder questions than announcing another arrest.

And that is precisely where Juvenal’s ancient metaphor becomes relevant.

The modern ‘circus’ does not have to mean entertainment in the traditional sense.

It can also mean the endless political spectacle surrounding an issue while the underlying problem remains insufficiently examined.

Narcotics enforcement should, therefore, be judged not merely by how many people are arrested, but by whether Ghana is actually becoming less attractive to traffickers, safer for young people and better equipped to prevent drug abuse.

The country needs the arrests. But it needs something more. It needs results.

WHAT ABOUT ENERGY?

The energy sector remains another elephant in the room.

The IMF estimates that Ghana’s energy-sector shortfall could still reach about US$1.1 billion in 2026, with distribution losses, expensive generation contracts and legacy debts continuing to pose challenges.

So while the public argues over insults, who is asking:

Who will pay for the energy-sector liabilities?

How much will electricity cost?

How much will businesses pay to operate?

And ultimately, how much of these costs will find their way into the prices consumers pay?

WHAT ABOUT THE DEBT?

Ghana’s debt situation also remains worthy of sustained scrutiny.

The country has made progress under its debt-restructuring and IMF-supported programme, but that does not mean the debt problem has disappeared.

Indeed, recent reporting put public debt at GHS733.9 billion by July 2026, an increase of GHS13.1 billion from May.

So why shouldn’t Ghanaians be asking where every borrowed cedi goes?

Why shouldn’t citizens demand accountability for public expenditure?

Why should personality clashes dominate the national conversation when debt sustainability affects generations yet unborn?

THE MODERN CIRCUS

This is not an argument against social media. It is not an argument against the Police enforcing the law. It is not an argument against entertainment. And it certainly isn’t an argument against the government’s efforts to stabilise the economy.

It is an argument about attention. Because a government does not necessarily have to deliberately create a distraction for distraction to occur.

The distraction can happen organically. A politician makes an inflammatory statement. Someone responds.

A TikToker insults somebody. The Police react. Political parties issue statements. Television and radio stations debate the controversy.

Social-media users take sides. Politicians join the argument. And suddenly, the entire country is discussing an insult.

Meanwhile, fuel has crossed GHS17. Diesel is around GHS19. Transport fares have gone up by 8 percent. The cost of living remains a concern. Young people need jobs. Cocoa financing remains problematic. The energy sector carries huge liabilities. Hospitals face capacity and supply challenges. Ghana’s dependence on imported pharmaceuticals remains high.

Illegal mining continues to threaten the environment. And the debt question has not disappeared.

That is the circus Juvenal would probably recognise.

Not necessarily because somebody deliberately organised it. But because the spectacle becomes so captivating that the serious issues are pushed into the background.

BREAD AND CIRCUS – OR GOVERNANCE?

The Government deserves credit where its economic stabilisation measures are producing results.

Falling inflation is important. A stronger currency is important. Improved reserves are important. Debt sustainability is important. But macroeconomic stability cannot become the end of the conversation.

The ultimate test of economic management is not merely whether inflation falls from 23 per cent to 5 percent.

It is whether ordinary citizens eventually feel the improvement in their pockets, kitchens, businesses, workplaces and homes.

If the inflation rate is falling but transport costs are rising, fuel is becoming more expensive and households still struggle to afford basic necessities, government must be prepared to explain why.

And citizens must be prepared to ask. Not merely:

‘Who insulted whom?’

But:

‘Who is creating the jobs?’

Not:

‘Who has been arrested on social media?’

But:

‘Why are essential medicines still vulnerable to supply problems?’

Not:

‘Which politician won the latest online argument?’

But:

‘What is being done about Ghana’s energy-sector liabilities?’

Not:

‘Who went viral today?’

But:

‘What is happening to cocoa?’

Not:

‘Which party has the louder social-media army?’

But:

‘Where is the value for the taxpayer’s money?’

That is the civic conversation Ghana needs.

Juvenal’s panem et circenses was ultimately a warning about citizens losing sight of their political responsibilities.

Ghana does not need fewer jokes, fewer football matches, fewer festivals or less social media.

Ghana needs more scrutiny.

More questions. More attention to budgets. More attention to jobs. More attention to health. More attention to energy. More attention to agriculture. More attention to the cost of living. More attention to public debt. More attention to the environment. More attention to education. And more attention to what the government does when the cameras are no longer focused on the latest political quarrel.

Because the greatest danger is not that Ghanaians will have bread and circuses.

The danger is that we may become so absorbed by the circus that we stop asking whether the bread is enough.

The US Embassy in Accra has held a special screening of the documentary ‘Young Washington’ for selected students of Accra Girls Senior High School among other dignitaries at the American Space as part of Freedom 250.

The screening was followed by a discussion facilitated by Hannah Fitter, Regional Public Engagement Specialist for Coastal West Africa at the US Embassy.

In an interview, Ms. Fitter said the film carries key lessons on leadership, self-belief and perseverance for Ghanaian youth. ‘Learn from those who have been through similar trials and tribulations, but then also be brave to set your own path forward,’ she advised.

‘Some great takeaways, all on their own. The importance of optimism, the importance of seeking mentorship.’

She praised Ghana’s education system, noting that access to affordable high school and university education is a blessing that offers the youth a platform to progress, despite peer and celebrity influence.

‘The power is with the people here in Ghana when they vote. The power is with the people when George Washington said to his fellow soldiers, ‘I’m here with you, I fight with you, we are one and the same.’ It doesn’t matter who I’m born to. We are all equal citizens,’ she noted, drawing parallels between American and Ghanaian democracy.

Ms. Fitter expressed hope that the female students would take inspiration from Washington’s confidence in his own worth. ‘I hope they take away that George Washington understood his worth. When someone said, ‘I don’t know if you can do this,’ he knew he could, and so he had faith in himself to be brave and stand up for what he believed. I hope that the young women here will also continue to understand that they have immense worth,’ she stressed.

She revealed that the Embassy is working to establish a film club at its American Spaces to continue exposing students to inspirational films. ‘We are trying to start a film club here. We’re really grateful that the State Department works with creative industries in the US to give access to licenses that would normally be quite expensive. We’re looking forward to continuing to show films here, whether ‘Young Washington’ or other films. Stay tuned,’ she added.

President John Dramani Mahama has defended Ghana’s decision to reject a proposed $100 million health compact from the United States, describing some of its conditions as humiliating and unacceptable.

The compact was presented as a replacement for health funding previously provided through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), but was rejected by Cabinet after a review by the Ministry of Health.

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, President Mahama said the Ministry of Health prepared a Cabinet Information Paper after examining the agreement and flagged several provisions.

According to him, the proposed compact required Ghana to provide the United States with its pathogen profile and medical records, which he said raised concerns about the country’s health data sovereignty.

‘It states that we shall give the United States our pathogen profile. It also says we should give our medical records. I mean, who takes another country’s medical records?’ he queried.

The President also said Ghana would have been required to provide counterpart funding under the arrangement, while medicines and medical products brought into the country would not be subject to inspection by the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA).

‘It was humiliating. And so it was the compact that was thrown out in record time in our Cabinet. I’ve never seen anything thrown out as fast as that,’ President Mahama stated.

Who should draw the line between legitimate criticisms and hate speech in Ghana?

President John Dramani Mahama’s directive to the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) and Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) opens a national debate on harmful speech. But Ghana’s Constitution already provides an institution whose mandate places it at the heart of that conversation: the National Media Commission (NMC).

There is a question beneath Ghana’s increasingly combustible public conversation that has become impossible to avoid:

When does legitimate criticism become hate speech?

Is it when a politician is insulted?

When a journalist is called a liar?

When an ethnic group is stereotyped?

When a religious community is vilified?

When a social-media post goes viral?

Or only when words cross the threshold into threats, incitement or a serious and foreseeable risk of harm?

President John Dramani Mahama has now asked the GJA and the MFWA to help Ghana find an answer.

In a September 22, 2026 letter, the Presidency directed the two organisations to convene a national stakeholder engagement on hate speech, abusive online content and responsible digital communication, and to develop a roadmap for addressing the problem.

The proposed engagement is expected to involve the NMC, Ghana Police Service, civil society, traditional media organisations, bloggers, influencers, content creators, legal and human-rights experts, digital platforms and other relevant institutions.

But there is a constitutional question that deserves to be placed much more prominently at the centre of this exercise:

Should the National Media Commission be merely one participant in the process-or should it occupy the central institutional role?

The answer matters. Because Ghana’s Constitution does not leave the country’s media governance architecture undefined. It creates the NMC. And it gives it a specific constitutional mandate.

The institution already written into the Constitution

Chapter 12 of the 1992 Constitution begins with a powerful declaration: ‘The freedom and independence of the media are hereby guaranteed.’

Article 162 prohibits censorship and protects media organisations from governmental interference over their editorial opinions and views. But the Constitution does not stop at protecting media freedom. It creates an institution specifically designed to help safeguard it.

Article 166 establishes the National Media Commission. And Article 167 spells out its functions. Among them is the responsibility: to promote and ensure the freedom and independence of the media; to take appropriate measures to ensure the highest journalistic standards; to investigate, mediate and settle complaints made against or by the press or other mass media; and to perform other functions prescribed by law consistent with the Constitution.

Article 172 then provides an additional safeguard: the Commission is not subject to the direction or control of any person or authority in the performance of its functions.

That constitutional architecture is highly relevant to the present debate. Because the challenge before Ghana is not simply how to suppress harmful speech. It is 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.

That is precisely where the NMC’s constitutional role becomes difficult to ignore.

The NMC should not be an afterthought

The Presidency’s directive is appropriately broad. But the architecture of the proposed process may need reconsideration.

The GJA represents journalists.

The MFWA has considerable expertise in media freedom and human rights.

Both have legitimate and important roles. But neither possesses the constitutional mandate of the National Media Commission. The NMC does. This does not mean that the GJA or MFWA should be displaced. Quite the opposite.

The strongest arrangement may be one in which the NMC provides the constitutional and institutional leadership, while the GJA, MFWA, media houses, civil society, lawyers, academics, technology platforms, bloggers and content creators contribute expertise and practical perspectives.

That would make the process broader than a media-industry discussion. It would make it a constitutional conversation about freedom of expression and accountability. And that distinction matters.

The problem is bigger than ‘hate speech’

Ghana’s debate has sometimes been reduced to one question: How do we stop hate speech?

That is too narrow. The country is actually dealing with a cluster of related but distinct problems: hate speech, incitement, threats, misinformation, disinformation, defamation, abusive communication, political insults, ethnic and religious stereotyping, online harassment, And legitimate criticism.

These categories should not be collapsed into one.

Calling a government’s economic policy disastrous is criticism.

Calling a minister incompetent may be insulting, but that alone does not automatically make it hate speech.

Publishing a false allegation may raise questions of defamation or misinformation.

Encouraging people to attack a community because of its ethnicity is an entirely different matter.

A credible threat against an individual is different again.

If Ghana gets these distinctions wrong, the consequences could be serious.

The danger of defining criticism as hate speech

There is an uncomfortable reality that must be confronted. Every government has an interest in reducing criticism of itself.

That does not mean every government will abuse speech laws. It means the institutional framework must be designed on the assumption that political power can change hands.

A law or regulatory mechanism that appears harmless when your preferred political party controls government can become considerably less comfortable when the opposition takes power. That is why the rules must be bigger than the government of the day. The Constitution’s protection of media freedom exists partly for precisely this reason.

Article 162 says media freedom and independence are guaranteed and prohibits governmental interference with editorial opinions and views. Any new hate-speech framework must therefore be built around an uncomfortable principle: The government must not become the final judge of whether criticism of the government is legitimate.

Ghana already has a warning from its own recent experience

The urgency of this conversation is heightened by Ghana’s recent disputes over speech-related arrests and prosecutions.

The MFWA has repeatedly criticized what it calls the criminalization of speech, particularly the use of Section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act and Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act.

The organization argues that civil remedies, including rejoinders, NMC processes and civil defamation actions, should generally be preferred where the issue is reputational injury rather than genuinely criminal conduct.

The MFWA has also expressed concern that proposed legislation dealing with misinformation, disinformation and hate speech could use definitions broad enough to capture legitimate disagreement or dissent.

These are the MFWA’s positions and should be distinguished from settled judicial findings. But they demonstrate why the new national dialogue cannot simply be about creating more offences. It must also examine whether Ghana is already using the right institutions and remedies for different categories of speech. And that brings the NMC directly into the centre of the debate.

Why the NMC may be the missing piece

Imagine a system in which every complaint about media content automatically becomes a police matter. The incentive would be obvious. If someone dislikes an investigation, attack or allegation, the easiest response could become: ‘Report the journalist.’ That would be dangerous.

But imagine a system in which a credible independent institution can receive the complaint, examine the content, hear both sides, determine whether professional standards were breached, facilitate a response or correction, and reserve criminal matters for the appropriate state institutions. That is closer to the constitutional role contemplated for the NMC.

Article 167 expressly gives the Commission responsibility for the investigation, mediation and settlement of complaints made against or by the press or other mass media. The implication is important.

Before Ghana reaches for the criminal law, there may be circumstances in which the country’s constitutional media-regulation architecture should be given the opportunity to work. That does not mean the NMC should replace the courts or police. It means Ghana should distinguish between a professional media dispute, a civil dispute, an ethical violation, and genuinely criminal conduct.

But what about bloggers and influencers?

Here lies the complication. The Constitution’s media framework predates TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, X and the modern creator economy. The person with the largest audience in a particular Ghanaian community may not work for a newspaper, radio station or television network.

A blogger can reach hundreds of thousands.

A social-media personality can shape political narratives.

A WhatsApp message can circulate through thousands of phones before anyone verifies it.

So the national framework must answer a difficult question: How much of the traditional media regulatory philosophy can legitimately be applied to the digital creator?

The answer should not automatically be to bring everyone under a heavy state regulatory regime. But neither should digital reach mean total immunity from accountability. This is where the NMC-led process could become particularly valuable.

It could bring traditional media, digital creators, platforms, lawyers, civil society and the public around the same table and develop a framework based on conduct and impact rather than simply the occupational label of the speaker.

Kenya has tried a different institutional route

Kenya’s experience is instructive because it has confronted the relationship between political speech, ethnicity and social cohesion for years.

Its Constitution protects freedom of expression while excluding propaganda for war, incitement to violence and advocacy of hatred that amounts to ethnic incitement, vilification or incitement to cause harm.

The country also created the National Cohesion and Integration Commission to investigate and address hate-speech concerns. There is a lesson here for Ghana: The response to harmful speech need not begin with the police.

There can be specialist institutions, complaint mechanisms and graduated responses. But Kenya also shows that institutions are only as effective as their independence, resources and public credibility. Ghana should therefore ask not only:

‘What should be illegal?’ but: ‘Who should decide when the threshold has been crossed?’

South Africa shows the importance of carefully drawn definitions

South Africa has pursued legislation specifically addressing hate crimes and hate speech. The Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Act was assented to by President Cyril Ramaphosa in 2024.

But the South African approach is significant because it recognizes that legitimate expression must be distinguished from unlawful hate speech. Certain forms of good-faith artistic, academic, scientific and public-interest expression receive protection under the framework.

South Africa’s experience demonstrates that legislation can attempt to draw distinctions. But it also demonstrates that the work does not end when Parliament passes a law. Definitions, regulations, enforcement and institutional safeguards matter just as much.

Nigeria provides another warning

Nigeria’s experience demonstrates the danger of relying heavily on criminal and cybersecurity laws to regulate online expression.

The country’s debate has repeatedly raised concerns about whether provisions designed to protect public safety can also be used against journalists, activists and critics.

The lesson for Ghana is not that Nigeria has no legitimate interest in combating harmful online conduct. It clearly does. The lesson is that the broader the offence, the greater the need for independent oversight and precise thresholds.

Rwanda presents the ultimate institutional warning

Rwanda’s experience is shaped by circumstances fundamentally different from Ghana’s, particularly its history of genocide and ethnic violence. That history makes the dangers of incitement very real. But the country’s restrictive environment for political expression also demonstrates why safeguards are necessary.

The lesson is simple:

A state can begin with a legitimate objective-protecting society from dangerous speech-and end up with a framework that also constrains legitimate political expression if sufficient safeguards are absent. Ghana must ensure that does not happen.

The NMC should convene the difficult conversation

This is where the current process could be significantly strengthened. The President has asked the GJA and MFWA to develop the framework. They should do so. But the National Media Commission should arguably be placed at the centre of the institutional architecture. Not because the NMC has all the answers. It does not.

But because the Constitution has already given it a role at the intersection of: media freedom, journalistic standards, complaints, mediation, media accountability, and independence from governmental control.

The GJA brings the voice of journalists. The MFWA brings expertise in media freedom and human rights. The Police bring the law-enforcement perspective. The judiciary brings the constitutional and legal interpretation. Civil society brings the citizen perspective. Digital platforms bring technological expertise. Bloggers and content creators bring the reality of the new media environment. But the NMC can provide the constitutional institutional anchor.

A possible new model for Ghana

The outcome of the national process should perhaps not be another broad law against ‘bad speech.’ Instead, Ghana could develop a National Framework on Responsible Public and Digital Communication, anchored in constitutional protections. It could establish clear categories.

CATEGORY ONE: Legitimate criticism

Political criticism, satire, commentary, investigative journalism, and dissent should receive the strongest protection.

CATEGORY TWO: Offensive but lawful expression

Speech may be crude, insulting or distasteful without necessarily becoming criminal.

The appropriate response may be public rebuttal, counter speech or professional accountability.

CATEGORY THREE: Misinformation and disputed claims

The response should emphasize verification, correction, right of reply and appropriate civil or regulatory remedies, depending on the circumstances.

CATEGORY FOUR: Defamation and reputational injury

Civil remedies and NMC mediation should be available where applicable.

CATEGORY FIVE: Threats and incitement

Where the legal threshold is met, law-enforcement intervention becomes appropriate.

CATEGORY SIX: Serious identity-based hate speech

Speech that crosses into legally defined incitement, advocacy of violence or serious harm should attract appropriate sanctions.

The critical point is that the categories must not be allowed to collapse into one another.

The NMC could also become the first line of redress

One of the most useful outcomes of this process would be to strengthen public confidence in the NMC’s complaint and mediation functions.

A citizen who believes a media house has wronged them should have somewhere to go.

A journalist who believes a powerful individual is trying to silence legitimate reporting should also have somewhere to go.

A media house accused of irresponsible reporting should have an opportunity to defend itself.

And where a correction, rejoinder or mediation can resolve the issue that should happen before the police are invited into the dispute. This would not weaken law enforcement. It would allow the police and courts to concentrate on conduct that genuinely requires criminal intervention.

The political test remains the hardest

There is one test that should be applied to every proposal emerging from this process: Would we accept this rule if the political party we dislike most were in power?

If the answer is no, the rule needs more work. Ghana’s democratic institutions must be designed for governments we like-and governments we do not like. For presidents we support-and presidents we oppose.

For journalists whose reporting we admire-and journalists whose reporting infuriates us.

For bloggers we agree with-and bloggers we consider irresponsible.

That is what constitutional safeguards are for.

Seven things the national process should deliver

If the President’s directive is to produce something more consequential than another conference and communiqué, the process should deliver at least seven concrete outcomes.

A precise national definition of hate speech. Not a vague definition based on whether somebody feels offended.

Clear distinctions between hate speech, incitement, threats, misinformation, defamation and legitimate criticism.

A graduated system of remedies. Not every breach should lead to arrest.

A strengthened role for the National Media Commission in complaints, mediation and professional accountability.

Clear guidelines for law-enforcement agencies. Police officers should not have to determine the boundaries of constitutional expression without clear standards.

Specific safeguards against political interference and selective enforcement.

A permanent multi-stakeholder mechanism, anchored by the NMC, to review emerging challenges in digital communication.

The last point may be particularly important.

Technology will continue changing. The law will always be behind it. Ghana therefore needs an institutionally credible mechanism capable of continuously examining the relationship between technology, speech and democracy.

The question is not whether Ghana should regulate speech

The real question is how. A society cannot simply declare that every form of expression is acceptable.

Threats matter.

Incitement matters.

Violence matters.

Deliberate mobilization of hatred against communities matters.

But neither can Ghana build a democracy in which citizens constantly wonder whether their criticism of the government, a politician, a religion, an institution, or a powerful individual could result in a knock on the door from the police. That is the line that must be protected.

And perhaps the most important question arising from President Mahama’s directive is therefore not: ‘How do we stop hate speech?’

It is ‘How do we build a system that can confront genuinely dangerous speech without giving political power the ability to define criticism as dangerous?’

The Constitution already provides part of the answer. It created an independent National Media Commission. It gave that Commission responsibility for protecting media freedom, promoting professional standards and handling complaints. It insulated the Commission from direction or control in the performance of its constitutional functions.

The current national debate should therefore not treat the NMC as another name on a stakeholder invitation list. It should ask the NMC to step into the constitutional space that was created for precisely this kind of challenge.

The GJA and MFWA should be important partners. The police, courts, civil society, digital platforms, journalists, bloggers and content creators should all have a voice.

But the institutional centre of gravity should be clear. Because if Ghana is going to draw a new line around speech, that line should not be drawn by the government of the day. It should be drawn through a transparent, constitutional, and independent process.

And the institution constitutionally mandated to stand at the intersection of media freedom and media accountability should be at the heart of that process.

Musician Sister Derby has called for an end to the growing practice of releasing balloons into the sky during funerals and vigils in Ghana.

In a post on X on September 27, 2026, she raised concerns about the environmental impact of the practice.

Sister Derby said releasing about 50 to 100 balloons during funeral ceremonies could contribute to plastic waste and other environmental problems.

‘Like seriously? Where do we think they end up? Is it necessary?’ she asked.

She also questioned the source of the plastic waste often highlighted by environmental group Bus Stop Boys.

‘So all the plastics/rubbers/rubbish the @buzstopboys dey show we nu, you think it’s from who?’ she wrote.

The Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) has announced changes to the assay regime used to determine the purity of gold purchased locally.

Under the new directive, the Water Density method of assay will, from October 1, 2026, be used only as an indicative assessment of gold purity and will no longer serve as the definitive basis for determining purity, pricing or payment.

GoldBod said the X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) assay method will instead become the definitive method for determining gold purity and will form the basis for payments for all gold doré purchased by the institution and its licensed buyers.

In a statement issued on Monday, September 28, GoldBod said, ‘With effect from October 1, 2026, the Water Density method of assay shall be used solely as an indicative assessment of gold purity for local gold purchases and shall not constitute the definitive basis for determining the purity, pricing and/or payment for gold purchased by the GoldBod or its licensed buyers.’

However, where a licensed buyer is unable to use the XRF method due to a genuine operational or logistical constraint, or where the buyer and seller voluntarily agree to use the Water Density method, the gold doré will be purchased at a 0.7% purity discount on the purity determined through the Water Density method.

GoldBod has also directed all licensed buyers to apply an appropriate purity deviation limit when comparing successive XRF assay reports for the same gold or transaction.

The permissible purity differential between one XRF report and another must remain within a range of plus or minus 0.1%.

Any purity differential exceeding the limit will be subject to further verification before the transaction is concluded or reported to GoldBod.

GoldBod said strict compliance with the new requirements will take effect on October 1, 2026.

The directive forms part of the terms and conditions of all licences issued by GoldBod to aggregators and licensed gold buyers.

It warned that failure to comply with the notice will constitute a breach of the applicable licence terms and conditions and may attract regulatory and enforcement measures under the Ghana Gold Board Act, 2025 (Act 1140).

GoldBod has therefore directed all licensed buyers and aggregators to take the necessary steps to ensure full operational readiness by October 1.

Veteran actor, Kofi Adjorlolo, said his infamous two-year ban, imposed by some Ghanaian film producers, did not last because it failed to achieve its purpose.

He reportedly said the ban was lifted after about six to eight months.

He said he became the first actor to face such a ban and was used as a ‘sacrificial lamb’ by the producers.

According to an Adomonline report he explained that the ban was meant to stop him from working on Ghanaian productions.

However, Nigerian producers continued to contact him for roles, allowing him to remain active.

According to Kofi Adjorlolo also known as Papa Lolo, the Ghanaian producers eventually withdrew the ban after realising that it was not achieving its purpose.

‘After six months or eight months or so, they themselves just pulled that thing out that I should come back,’ he said.

He added that the experience opened up more opportunities for him to work across West Africa.

President John Mahama has been offered a rare opportunity to prove his disdain for the politics of invectives in the country.

It has been reported that an aide to the Interior Minister described as fools those who criticise the failed ‘Nkoko Nkitinkiti’ project.

This insult which aims at the good people of this country is not only painful, it reflects the intolerance level of this government.

Unless the aide is called to order immediately, we shall be compelled to take it that he has spoken the mind of his boss and for that matter the government.

The culture of insults is one we have complained about for a while now but constrained to add that the President’s role in planting and nurturing it is indisputable. That is why when he now calls for a national forum on it, we find it a matter of derision.

During his first tenure, he was quoted as telling then Candidate Akufo-Addo that he might be sleeping when he claimed that he did not see the good roads that he John Mahama had constructed in the Western Region. There are many of such insults which he rained on his predecessor and other Ghanaians he found to be unsupportive of him.

Hypocrisy is something which is retarding our democratic journey so far, and, unless we treat it, we shall not achieve the desired goals required of us as a nation.

We have heard about a few people talking about the level of insults that has visited the country in the past few months, the impetus for which has been provided by the good and bad social media, especially TikTok.

Putting the blame on all politicians as these observers seek to do is as hypocritical as it is inappropriate.

Let us identify the source of it all, as only then shall we be on our way to tackling it head-on.

We should be bold to call them out who prayed openly for the death of the former President and described him as the master serpent of corruption.

Who said Akufo-Addo might not steal state resources personally but would have his brothers do so on his behalf so he can depend on the spoils when he is on retirement? We should be bold and stop skirting round the reality.

For now, let us admit it as citizens of a country which is expected to be a decent one, that the ambience has been fouled by insults, some of them too graphic they are unrepeatable.

The President’s body-language enmeshed in contradictory remarks as being observed won’t help matters.

We state unequivocally that his claim that he only hears about the recent arrests of TikTokers in the media cannot be true.

Ordering the Police to stop arresting persons alleged to have used hate speech on TikTok, cannot be what we want as Ghanaians, he said. This points at his preference in this conundrum we find ourselves in today.

Our take is that he would prefer a legislation to gag the people of this country even as his hounds continue to be on the prowl, spewing vile nonsense on their targets.

Let us try this approach: President John Mahama should decommission Kevin Taylor, and all others, we can bet, will ceasefire on the raging hate speech.

The Member of Parliament (MP) for Manhyia South, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah, has filed a Writ of Summons against the MP for Akwatia, Bernard Bediako Baidoo, and broadcaster Abubakar Alhassan, popularly known as Blakk Rasta, over what he considers as false and defamatory statements made and published about him.

The writ, filed yesterday, seeks redress through the civil courts over the alleged defamatory statements.

In a statement, Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah said he had deliberately chosen the civil litigation route rather than pursuing criminal prosecution over the publication of the ‘false information.’

He said the decision was part of his commitment to seeking accountability through democratic and constitutional processes.

‘Unlike the Government, I have chosen the path of democratic accountability by seeking redress through the civil courts, rather than pursuing criminal prosecution for the publication of what I consider to be false information,’ he said.

The Manhyia South MP also alleged that attempts by the government to intimidate and silence him over his involvement in a matter concerning a woman had failed.

According to him, he was pursuing justice for a mother of three minor children who was taken into custody by state security agents late on Saturday and remained in police custody.

Nana Agyei Baffour Awuah said his actions were aimed at securing the rights of the woman and her children, and insisted that he would not be deterred by efforts to silence him.

‘That said, I wish to state unequivocally that the attempt by the Government to intimidate and silence me in my quest to fight for the rights of a poor mother of three (3) minor children, who was allegedly taken into custody by state security agents in the late hours of Saturday and remains in police custody, has failed,’ he stated.

He further reaffirmed his intention to pursue the matter through the appropriate legal channels.

‘I remain committed to pursuing this matter through lawful and constitutional means and will not be deterred from seeking justice for her and her children,’ he said.

The Black Maidens ended their WAFU B U-17 Girls Cup campaign on a high note after recording a commanding 4-0 victory over hosts Côte d’Ivoire on Sunday.

Ghana took control early, with Seidatu Wahab opening the scoring from the penalty spot in the 14th minute.

The Black Maidens continued to dominate proceedings and doubled their lead in the 32nd minute through Gloria Ameaa.

Ghana maintained its control after the break and added two more goals late in the game to complete a convincing victory. Cynthia scored in the 86th minute, while the Maidens added another goal to seal the 4-0 win.

The result allowed Ghana to finish the tournament strongly in Yamoussoukro after an earlier 4-2 defeat to Nigeria at the Lycée Scientifique.

The Black Maidens also participated in a post-match penalty shootout as part of player development activities organised during the tournament.