A letter sent by then-opposition leader John Dramani Mahama in 2022 condemning the Akufo-Addo administration for what he called the criminalisation of free speech has resurfaced following TikToker Camilla Alhassah’s one-year prison sentence.
The letter, dated February 11, 2022, was sent to Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, the president at the time, and it voiced concerns about what Mahama claimed was an increasing tendency in Ghana to repress free speech and journalism.
“I am appalled at the growing criminalisation of speech and journalism in Ghana, under your watch, in this 21st century,” Mahama said.
He said that the application of criminal law to address remarks made against public authorities undercut the repeal of the criminal libel legislation and attacked the arrest and prosecution of journalists, broadcasters, and campaigners.
“As Attorney General, at the time, who led the repeal of the criminal libel law, in order that citizens could freely express their views, it is unconscionable to be suppressing the rights and criminalising the speech of citizens and journalists,” he stated.
Mahama said that speech-related issues were being handled as criminal crimes rather than civil ones, citing the examples of Captain Smart, Oheneba Boamah Bennie, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, and Bobie Ansah, among others.
Citing examples of alleged harassment and attacks on media professionals as well as the murder of investigative journalist Ahmed Hussein-Suale, he further accused the Akufo-Addo administration of neglecting to safeguard journalists.
The letter stated, “President Akufo-Addo, you cannot continue to oppress the people and criminalise speech when these matters are essentially civil in nature if you feel offended by them.”
Mahama also cautioned that further repression of free speech will harm Akufo-Addo’s legacy and Ghana’s democratic credentials.
The letter reappeared after TikToker Camilla Alhassah was found guilty of provocative behaviour and publishing false information about President Mahama in videos, and she was sentenced to a year in prison.
Supporters of the sentence characterise it as a legitimate consequence of criminal behaviour, while detractors contend it raises issues about freedom of expression and the application of criminal penalties in speech-related instances.
Source: newsthemegh.com