Afenyo-Markin Advocates for Repeal of Section 208

Afenyo-Markin Advocates for Repeal of Section 208

In a significant address at the 30th Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) Media Awards in Accra, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin issued a firm call for the repeal of legislative provisions that criminalize speech. Speaking to a gathering of media professionals and dignitaries, the Effutu Member of Parliament argued that certain decades-old statutes have become incompatible with the democratic principles of modern Ghana. He specifically targeted laws that have historically been used to penalize the publication of information deemed false or alarming.

The Minority Leader’s advocacy centers on the belief that the current legal framework creates a chilling effect on journalism and civic engagement. By calling for the scrapping of these laws during the GJA Media Awards 2026, Afenyo-Markin signaled a legislative push to ensure that the “culture of silence” does not return under the guise of maintaining public order. He emphasized that while responsible journalism is necessary, the threat of imprisonment for speech acts serves as a regressive tool rather than a constructive regulatory measure.

The Legal Framework: Section 208 and Section 76 Explained

The primary focus of the Minority Leader’s critique involves two specific pieces of legislation: Criminal Offences Act Section 208 and Electronic Communications Act Section 76. These laws, though originating from different eras, share a common objective of regulating the dissemination of information that the state deems harmful or deceptive.

Section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), classifies the publication or reproduction of any statement, rumor, or report likely to cause “fear and alarm to the public” as a misdemeanor. The law applies if the individual knows or has reason to believe the information is false. Similarly, Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775), criminalizes the intentional transmission of false or misleading electronic communications that could prejudice life-saving services or endanger the safety of individuals and transport vessels.

Legal experts and policymakers have often noted that the ambiguity of what constitutes “fear and alarm” allows for wide prosecutorial discretion. While Parliamentary report delays often hinder the swift revision of outdated statutes, Afenyo-Markin suggests that the time has come for a direct legislative intervention to remove these specific barriers to free expression.

Defending Freedom of Expression in the Digital Age

“Section 208 has no place in a democratic Ghana where free speech is a cornerstone of our progress.”

— Alexander Afenyo-Markin, GBC Ghana Online

Afenyo-Markin argued that in the contemporary digital landscape, these laws are increasingly being weaponized against critics and journalists rather than serving their original intent of preserving public peace. He noted that the press freedom in Ghana is undermined when the state uses criminal litigation to respond to civil disagreements or investigative reports. The Minority Leader maintained that the Minority Caucus views Section 208 as having “no place in Ghana’s democracy.”

The argument highlights a growing tension between the state’s desire to curb “fake news” and the constitutional right to free speech. Afenyo-Markin posited that the proliferation of social media requires a more nuanced approach than the current criminal statutes provide. Instead of jail time, he suggested that civil remedies and professional regulatory bodies like the National Media Commission (NMC) should be the primary avenues for addressing grievances related to false publications.

A Plea for Presidential Pardon: The Case of Camilla Alhassan

During his address, the Minority Leader transitioned from legislative theory to a specific humanitarian appeal. He directed a plea to President John Dramani Mahama to grant a presidential pardon to Camilla Alhassan, a TikTok user currently serving a one-year prison sentence. Alhassan was convicted following social media comments that were deemed to have violated existing laws regarding false information.

The Camilla Alhassan pardon request served as a practical example of how Afenyo-Markin believes the law is disproportionately applied. He argued that sentencing individuals to prison for social media commentary is an excessive response that does not align with the spirit of a free and open society. By championing her case, the Minority Leader aimed to highlight the real-world consequences of maintaining Section 208 and Section 76 on the books, stressing that such incarcerations do more to damage the nation’s democratic image than the original speech does to damage public peace.

What the Proposed Repeals Mean for Ghanaians

If the proposed repeals were to be enacted, the practical implications for the average Ghanaian and the media fraternity would be substantial. The removal of these sections would effectively decriminalize the act of sharing information that might be incorrect but lacks malicious criminal intent. This does not mean that individuals would have a license to defame others; rather, it would shift the burden of such cases from the criminal courts to the civil courts, where defamation and libel are typically handled.

For journalists, the repeal would offer a greater layer of protection when reporting on sensitive political issues or government conduct. Under the current laws, the threat of a misdemeanor charge can be used to intimidate reporters into self-censorship. For the general public, particularly the youth active on digital platforms, the repeal would signal a move toward a more tolerant digital discourse, where the fear of imprisonment does not hang over every shared post or expressed opinion.

Ultimately, Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s stance at the GJA awards underscores a broader legislative debate regarding the evolution of Ghanaian law. As the country continues to navigate the complexities of the information age, the push to align criminal codes with constitutional freedoms remains a central theme for the Minority Caucus and human rights advocates alike.