By: Alexander Afriyie
In a recent development that has sparked heated debate, a young blogger was sentenced to 30 days in prison for publishing speculative “false news” about potential restrictions on dollar withdrawals from banks in Ghana. The blogger’s assertion that dollar account holders might not be able to withdraw dollars from their accounts was deemed false, leading to their arrest and subsequent sentencing.
What’s striking, however, is the perceived disparity in treatment between this blogger and a Parliament (MP) for Bolgatanga Central Isaac Adongo, who made a similar announcement that was promptly denied by the Bank of Ghana (BoG). The MP’s claims, much like the blogger’s, suggested that there would be restrictions on dollar withdrawals, but no similar action seems to have been taken against the MP.
This incident has reignited discussions about Section 208 of the law, which deals with the publication of false news. Critics argue that this law is often used to stifle free speech and silence whistleblowers, while others see it as a necessary measure to maintain public order and prevent the spread of misinformation.
The case of Adenta Kumi, who was recently arrested and charged under Section 208, has also raised questions about the application of this law. Kumi’s arrest has been seen by many as an attempt to suppress dissenting voices and limit the freedom of expression.
In a democratic society, the balance between free speech and regulation is crucial. While it’s essential to prevent the spread of false information that could cause panic or harm, it’s equally important to ensure that laws aren’t used to silence critics or stifle debate.
The incidents involving the blogger and the Bolga MP highlight the need for clarity and consistency in the application of laws related to free speech. As Ghana continues to navigate the complexities of democracy and development, it’s essential to revisit laws like Section 208 and ensure they align with the principles of free expression and transparency.
Ultimately, the question remains: is Section 208 a necessary evil in our times, or is it an unwanted relic of a bygone era? Alexander Afriyie