Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has called for a more careful and consistent interpretation of Ghana’s laws on free speech, hate speech, and publication of false news, warning against what he describes as confusion and selective enforcement.
Speaking on the KeyPoints, he argued that not every offensive or critical statement should automatically be treated as a criminal matter, stressing the need to distinguish between political satire, opinion, and actual incitement or harmful intent.
According to him, political expression often takes different forms, including satire and criticism, which should not be criminalised simply because they target public officials.
“There is space for political satire. Don’t think everything is meant to be a crime,” he said on May 23.
Mr. Kpebu noted that public debate has become increasingly confusing, with unclear boundaries between lawful expression and punishable speech, especially in politically charged environments.
He cautioned that excessive criminalisation of speech could lead to abuse of security powers and weaken democratic freedoms.
The legal practitioner referenced legal provisions on bail and publication-related offences, explaining that courts must carefully assess intent and circumstances before restricting personal liberty.
He cited legal principles around bail conditions and said courts must consider whether a suspect is likely to commit another offence while on bail but warned that such discretion must not be misused.
Mr. Kpebu also referred to past judicial decisions, including the landmark case of Oko v The Republic, noting that Ghana’s Supreme Court has previously cautioned against overly harsh or restrictive interpretations of bail and free expression laws.
He argued that political speech, including satire, should not automatically trigger arrest or prosecution unless it crosses into clear criminal conduct such as incitement to violence.
“If we begin to think that even political satire is against the law, then we are lost in democracy,” he warned.
Mr. Kpebu further noted that many democratic societies allow strong criticism of political leaders, including humour and satire, as part of free expression.
He urged legal and security institutions to clearly separate genuine threats from political commentary to avoid unnecessary arrests and tensions.
According to him, over-policing speech risks undermining trust in state institutions and could be seen as abuse of prosecutorial or police powers.
Mr. Kpebu maintained that the solution lies in clear legal thresholds and consistent application of the law, rather than broad interpretations that blur the line between opinion and crime.
By Christabel Success Treve
