RANA warns Salomey Bafoh case could have chilling effect on free expression

Rights Accountability Network Africa (RANA) has expressed deep concerns over the arrest, detention and prosecution of senior nursing officer Salomey Awiti Bafoh in Ghana, warning that the case could have a chilling effect on freedom of expression within the country. While RANA is uncertain of Ms Bafoh's ultimate fate in the case, they are focused on the broader implications for how speech-related offenses are investigated and prosecuted.

Ghana's 1992 Constitution guarantees citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 21(1)(a), but RANA believes this protection must allow individuals to question the government, debate public affairs, and engage in political discussions without fear of criminal repercussions for lawful expression or dissemination of political material.

The charges against Bafoh include abetting crime related to the alleged publication and circulation of false news, stemming from her alleged assistance to "Ghana Jollof" TikTok account owner Barbara Asantewaa Kodua, popularly known as "Ghana Jollof." These charges allege financial transactions between the two and suggest that the investigation may have national security implications and involve cyber-related evidence.

Despite an initial High Court refusal of Bafoh's bail application, citing concerns about potential interference with electronic evidence and ongoing investigations, RANA emphasizes that even lawful investigations carry significant implications. They argue that the manner in which state power is exercised is crucial, noting that arrests, detention, prolonged uncertainty, public allegations, and the prospect of prosecution can affect the behavior of thousands of citizens who will never enter a courtroom.

RANA warns that the "chilling effect" extends beyond explicit silencing and can occur when citizens self-censor based on the perceived consequences for others. They cite Ghana's constitutional history and previous experience with a "culture of silence" to argue that fear-driven silence contradicts the Constitution's intended purpose of overcoming such a culture.

RANA demands full respect for Bafoh's constitutional rights and calls for an expedited resolution of the case consistent with the High Court's directive. They also request transparency regarding the arrest and transfer processes and continued judicial consideration of bail proceedings in accordance with the law. Additionally, RANA seeks clear guidance for law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors on when actions related to online content, such as sharing, redistributing, financing, or facilitating, could lead to criminal liability.

They also urge a thorough review of Ghana's criminal speech laws, including Section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, in relation to freedom of expression obligations under the African Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. RANA emphasizes that the case highlights broader issues regarding how speech-related offenses are investigated and enforced, particularly concerning online content and criticism of public officials.

They assert that a democracy's legitimacy is not solely determined by the presence of a constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech but by citizens' genuine belief in their ability to exercise that freedom.