In an era defined by digital footprints, biometric databases, and surveillance technologies, data is no longer just a technical concept—it is a human rights issue. In Ghana, the establishment of the Data Protection Commission and the enactment of the Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843) marked a progressive leap toward aligning the country with global standards like the European Union’s GDPR. The ecosystem is budding: Certified Data Protection Officers (CDPOs) are emerging, institutions are beginning to embrace compliance, and awareness campaigns are slowly taking root.
Yet, there remains a critical gap in this ecosystem—one that threatens to undermine the entire framework: the legal fraternity’s insufficient integration into the data protection dialogue. Lawyers, judges, and the wider judiciary remain largely disconnected from the evolving digital rights landscape, and the consequences for Ghanaian data subjects could be catastrophic.
Filing 20th Century Cases in a 21st Century Reality
Recent legal actions, such as the case of Gifty Amoakowaa v Peace and Love Hospital, exemplify this disconnect. Here, a patient alleges a violation of her privacy rights after undergoing a medical examination under undisclosed CCTV surveillance. While this is clearly a data protection issue rooted in consent, fairness, and lawful processing under Act 843, the legal filings relied on broad constitutional principles and outdated tort law instead of citing specific provisions under the Data Protection Act.
Lawyers, unfamiliar with the procedural and substantive dimensions of data protection law, are filing cases using precedents that predate the digital age. As a result, judges are left without the contextual or legal tools needed to adjudicate these matters properly. The reasoning of some critical judicial rulings fails to reflect the nuances of data privacy, consent, data minimization, or purpose limitation—all core pillars of Act 843 and international frameworks.
When the Gavel Misses the Point
Imagine this: your private medical diagnosis is leaked through a hospital’s poorly secured database. You seek justice. Your lawyer, unaware of Section 20 of Act 843, which deals with unlawful disclosure of sensitive personal data, files a general human rights violation case. The judge, untrained in data protection jurisprudence, views it as a simple case of negligence. The result? No meaningful compensation, no accountability, and no precedent that would deter future violations. This is not hypothetical. It is already happening.
The Ripple Effect: From Courtrooms to Citizens
When lawyers are unable to identify data protection violations and judges fail to assess cases within the correct legal context, the following injustices emerge:
- Loss of Legal Remedies: Victims are denied justice because their claims are wrongly categorized and improperly argued.
- Lack of Precedent: Without data protection rulings, Ghana's legal system fails to evolve jurisprudence that reflects the realities of the digital age.
- Public Mistrust: When courts dismiss or mishandle data-related grievances, citizens lose faith in both the legal system and the promise of data rights.
- Impunity for Institutions: Data controllers and processors are emboldened to continue with weak security practices and disregard for consent.
- Weak Enforcement: Without robust litigation, the Data Protection Commission’s enforcement efforts may fall short, limited to audits and fines without judicial backing.
The Legal Fraternity: Missing in Action
Despite data protection being embedded in Ghanaian law for over a decade, few lawyers have specialized in this field. Law schools rarely teach it. Judges seldom encounter it in court, and when they do, it’s tangled in constitutional clauses rather than the precise language of Act 843. Even in landmark cases involving surveillance, biometric data collection, or unlawful disclosures by public institutions, the law is often interpreted narrowly. The absence of data protection analysis in these rulings sets a dangerous precedent for future violations to go unchecked.
Why This Matters: Real Harm, Real People
Let’s make this real. When a child’s school shares their academic records with third-party app developers without consent, it is not just a breach of data. It is a betrayal of trust. When a hospital leaks patient files online, it is not merely a system error. It is an assault on dignity. When facial recognition is used in public spaces without informing citizens, it is not just innovation. It is surveillance. Each of these scenarios deserves proper legal scrutiny and remedies. But if the judiciary lacks the knowledge and confidence to handle these issues, then victims suffer in silence.
The Way Forward: Building a Legally Literate Ecosystem
- Mandatory Legal Training on Act 843: Judicial Service training programs should include compulsory modules on data protection law and its intersections with human rights, tort law, and constitutional law.
- Law School Curriculum Reform: Ghana’s law faculties must incorporate Data Protection and Digital Rights Law into their LLB and post-graduate programs.
- Bar Association Involvement: The Ghana Bar Association must take leadership in organizing CLE (Continuing Legal Education) courses and certification in data protection for practicing lawyers.
- Judicial Bench Books: The Judicial Service, in collaboration with the Data Protection Commission, should publish interpretive guidance and benchmark cases to aid judges in data-related rulings.
- Strategic Litigation: Civil society and legal think tanks should support strategic litigation that brings data protection issues directly to the courts and frames them within the correct legal context.
- Collaboration with the DPC: Lawyers and judges should engage regularly with the Data Protection Commission to stay updated on enforcement trends, legal interpretations, and policy developments.
A Call to Action
We are at a tipping point. Ghana has the legal tools, the regulatory infrastructure, and the public will to protect data privacy. But if the courts continue to rule without reference to these laws, then they become relics—not remedies.
The legal fraternity must rise to the occasion. Judges must issue rulings that serve as data protection precedents. Lawyers must stop filing yesterday’s cases in today’s courts. Legal educators must prepare students for the digital legal challenges of tomorrow. And the citizenry? They must demand that their rights are protected not only by law but also by practice, precedent, and principle. Because in a world where data is power, justice begins with understanding how that power is used, abused, and, most importantly, held accountable.