The story of Mahama’s rhetorical shift need not be one of despair. Instead, it can awaken Ghana’s civic imagination. Democracies self-correct when citizens and institutions unite behind clear rules, independent checks, and enduring principles.
Once a champion of free speech, President Mahama now leads a crackdown that raises hard questions about democratic norms. Is Ghana witnessing the weaponization of regulation? Four young TikTok creators sit behind bars. Their alleged crime? Speaking out—crudely, yes—but politically which is not news. Their arrest has become a litmus test for Ghana’s democratic resolve and the evolving boundaries between hate, dissent, incitement, and digital discipline. The resulting debate is not merely about decorum online; it is about whether the state’s response reflects principle or power.
In the theatre of Ghanaian politics, few performances have been as jarring as President John Dramani Mahama’s recent crusade against hate speech. Once a self-styled defender of free expression, Mahama now dons the robes of a digital disciplinarian—threatening IP-traced arrests and criminal prosecution for online offenders. The pivot is not just dramatic; it is deeply troubling.
“We’ll use your IP number to trace you. When we trace you, we’ll deal with you under the criminal code,” Mahama declared at a presidential media encounter on September 10, 2025.
This is not the voice of the man who, in 2022, lambasted the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) for “criminalising speech and journalism.” Back then, Mahama stood shoulder to shoulder with civil society, decrying the arrests of journalists and activists. Today, he presides over a government that has arrested four TikTok content creators—young voices aligned with the opposition. Does this sound like Obed Asamoah the Attorney General during the first Republic who swore “over his dead body” never to repeal the criminal libel. God being so good he was alive to see the criminal libel law repealed when President Kufour came into power 2000.
A tale of two Mahamas
The Mahama of opposition was eloquent, impassioned, and principled. He spoke of democracy’s fragility, of the need to protect dissent, of the dangers of authoritarian drift. But the Mahama of power is a different character altogether—one who sees hate speech not as a social ill to be debated, but as a criminal offense to be hunted down with digital surveillance. The power and mindless borderless intrusion of digital surveillance without proper regulation and vigilance by civil society and the citizenry has the immense potential of taking us back 40 years to the revolutionary and dictatorial days of “culture of silence” under the Flt Lt Rawlings PNDC days. If you’re in doubt wait until they start picking us individually at dawn.
This rhetorical whiplash is not merely inconsistent—it is emblematic of a deeper malaise in Ghanaian politics: the tendency to weaponize principle when convenient, and discard it when power beckons.
Mahama’s transformation—from a self-styled guardian of speech to a digital disciplinarian—exposes the fragility of political promises. In 2001, Ghana led West Africa by repealing criminal libel laws, affirming that state power should not suffocate debate. Today’s surveillance-led arrests threaten to reverse that legacy.
In a healthy democracy, commitments endure beyond campaign slogans. In Mahama’s case, principle bent with power. This rhetorical whiplash does more than erode public trust; it hands cynicism the moral high ground.
Selective outrage and the cost of silence
The consequences of this hypocrisy are not theoretical. They are real, measurable, and corrosive. Take, for instance, the August 6 helicopter crash that claimed the lives of eight statesmen. The nation mourned. But online, a darker chorus emerged—comments wishing death upon public figures, mocking the tragedy, and stoking division. Mahama seized on this moment to justify his crackdown.
Yet critics ask: where was this moral urgency when similar vitriol was hurled at public figures including the former president and his vice under the previous administration? Where was the call for IP tracking when opposition voices were all over the place on social media, radio and television stations across the country.
The psychology of power
Political hypocrisy is not new. But in the digital age, it is harder to hide. Every speech, every tweet, every press release lives forever—waiting to be juxtaposed, dissected, and exposed.
Ellen Ama Daaku of the NPP recently called Mahama “the biggest political hypocrite Ghana has ever had,” citing his contradictory stance on illegal mining—promising bans in Accra while allegedly encouraging it in rural campaign stops. Whether one agrees or not, the charge resonates because it taps into a broader truth: inconsistency breeds distrust.
Historical anchoring and legal stakes
Ghana’s repeal of criminal libel laws in 2001 marked a democratic watershed, signaling a commitment to protect speech—even when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable. That reform did not sanctify defamation or incitement; rather, it moved adjudication from criminal sanction toward the NMC and seeing civil remedies and higher thresholds for state coercion. Today’s posture—surveillance-led enforcement, expedited arrests, and public warnings of IP tracing—invites scrutiny about whether the spirit of that 2001 settlement is being preserved or progressively reversed through the back door.
The normative baseline is that the 1992 Constitution protects freedom of expression while permitting lawful limitations for public order and safety. But the practical dilemma is that without clear statutory definitions of “hate speech” and “incitement,” enforcement risks inconsistency, selective application, and political instrumentalization. Hence the core issue is not whether abusive speech is harmful—it is. The issue is whether the state’s tools and thresholds are clear, proportionate, and immune to partisan drift. I would this to the judgement of the reader.
Comparative insight: a regional and global pattern
Ghana is not alone in this struggle. Across the continent and beyond, democracies wrestle with the pull between order and openness:
• India: Expansive use of sedition and IT rules has chilled dissent on platforms while claiming to curb misinformation.
• Nigeria: Attempts at social media regulation and platform sanctions have raised concerns about overreach and political targeting.
• Kenya and South Africa: Courts and legislatures wrestle with balancing hate speech prohibitions against constitutional guarantees of expression.
The lesson is consistent: absent narrow definitions, judicial oversight, and transparent enforcement protocols, measures designed to curb harm can metastasize into instruments that deter legitimate criticism. The Ghana Journalist Association and civil society groups must closely watch and police these developments before any bill reaches our lopsided parliament to avoid the mistakes of the first parliament of the first Republic with the lonely voice of the late Hawa Yakubu and the dissenting voice of the late Squadron Leader Sowu during the debate of the liberalisation of the airwaves on the floor of the house where the then Minister of Information in his address likened the liberalisation of the airwaves as the ‘opening of the Pandora box”.
Evidence, examples, and voices
The recent sequence of events highlights both a public interest concern and a procedural risk:
• Triggering moment: Offensive online commentary following a deadly helicopter crash generated outrage and calls for accountability.
• State response: Public threats of IP-based tracing; arrests of four TikTok creators; charges framed under offenses likely to breach public peace.
• Public conversation: Applause from those seeking order; alarm from those fearing a precedent for suppression.
Civil society, legal practitioners, and youth voices articulate the competing values at stake:
• Civil liberties perspective: “We’re not defending hate speech,” says a digital rights advocate. “We’re defending the right to speak without fear of political retribution.”
• Rule-of-law lens: “If thresholds aren’t defined, discretion becomes destiny,” notes a constitutional lawyer. “That’s risky for any multiparty democracy.”
• Youth viewpoint: “If a livestream can lead to handcuffs without a clear standard, we’ll self-censor long before we can learn,” a student journalist observes.
These perspectives converge on a single imperative: precision. Precision in law, in process, and in proportionality.
Risks of inconsistency and the cost to democratic trust
Inconsistent rhetoric and enforcement carry measurable consequences:
• Legitimacy erosion: When positions on speech vary with political status, public confidence in principled governance declines.
• Chilling effect: Vague standards incentivize self-censorship, dampening investigative journalism, satire, and robust debate—the lifeblood of democratic accountability.
• Selective enforcement: Perceived partisanship in prosecutions can convert genuine public-order concerns into political flashpoints, undermining compliance and respect for the law.
• Policy brittleness: Regulations born of acute crises often struggle to adapt to routine governance, creating volatile cycles of overreach and backlash.
In short, uncertainty breeds cynicism; cynicism breeds disengagement; disengagement weakens democratic resilience.
Guardrails for principled regulation
A democratic response to corrosive speech requires restraint, clarity, and accountability. Several policy guardrails can align enforcement with constitutional commitments to rebuild a democracy shaken by double standards by translating lessons into guardrails:
• Define statutory thresholds with specificity:
Scope: Precisely define hate speech, incitement, and harassment.
Intent and harm: Require demonstrable intent and a credible risk of imminent harm for criminal liability.
• Codify proportionality and due process:
Escalation ladder: Prefer warnings, platform remedies, and civil measures before criminal charges.
Judicial oversight: Mandate independent warrants for surveillance, IP tracing, and data access.
• Insulate enforcement from partisan influence:
Independent body: Empower a nonpartisan regulator with transparent procedures and rights to appeal.
Audit trail: Require public reporting on complaints, actions taken, and outcomes.
• Strengthen civic capacity, not only coercive capacity:
Media literacy: Invest in schools, community programs, and journalist training on ethical speech.
Platform partnerships: Co-develop context-aware moderation protocols that respect local law and rights.
• Sunset and review clauses:
Time-bounded powers: Subject new authorities to periodic legislative review and impact assessment.
• Civic Education & Media Literacy: Integrate digital-responsibility curricula in schools, universities, and community centres.
• Partner with telecom operators and social platforms on context-aware moderation guides.
Call to action: Institutions and citizens
• Parliament: Hold hearings to clarify definitions, standards of evidence, and oversight mechanisms; legislate narrow, rights-respecting limits.
• Judiciary: Articulate clear jurisprudence on imminence, intent, and proportionality; safeguard due process in digital investigations by publishing anonymized warrant decisions to bolster transparency.
• Civil society and media: Monitor cases, publish independent oversight reports, and litigate for clarity where necessary.
• Platforms: Localize moderation practices, provide transparent appeal processes, and collaborate on non-carceral remedies.
• Citizens: Practice responsible speech; defend consistent standards—regardless of which party holds power.
This is how democracies self-correct: by aligning tools with principles, not principles with convenience.
Rebuilding trust: A call to integrity
If Ghana is to preserve its democratic soul, its leaders must do more than regulate speech—they must regulate themselves. That means:
• Consistency in principle, not just in power.
• Transparent enforcement, free from partisan bias.
• Legal clarity, so citizens know where free speech ends and criminality begins.
• Civic education, to build a culture of responsible digital engagement.
The mirror and the mandate
The “mirror” is a useful metaphor because it implicates everyone—state and citizen alike. If today’s reflection shows a politics willing to flex standards to suit circumstance, the task is not to break the mirror but to correct the posture. The test of Ghana’s democratic maturity is whether it can confront online harm without eroding the freedoms that legitimized reform in 2001.
A durable settlement is within reach: define the harm tightly, oversee the remedy independently, and educate the public relentlessly. Let the rule be consistency, the method be transparency, and the measure be proportionality. In that light, contradictions cast shorter shadows—and the reflection brightens.
The mirror never lies
President Mahama’s war on hate speech may be well-intentioned. But intention is not enough. In politics, as in life, integrity is measured not by what we say when it suits us—but by what we uphold when it costs us.
Ghanaians deserve leaders who speak with one voice, not two. Who defend principle in opposition and in office. Who understand that the real enemy of democracy is not dissent, but duplicity.
Until then, the mirror will continue to reflect what many already see: a politics of convenience, dressed in the language of justice.
Reclaiming the mirror
As we journey forward as a nation, let us not be deceived by the shifting reflections in the political glass. Today, it may be the NDC that stands before us; tomorrow, the NPP or the CPP may take its place. Yet the mirror—symbol of power, scrutiny, and truth—remains unchanged. It does not flatter, it does not forget. It reflects not the name, but the nature of leadership.
–
Story by Alhaji Abubakari Sidick Ahmed (PhD) Media and Communication Policy & Regulatory Expert and Broadcaster, Former Commissioner-NMC
