Much as some of us abhor insults, sedition, slander, defamation, and obscenity in political discourse, it is monstrously unjust for the government of Ghana to target only its brassbound critics, whose alleged insults are somewhat unpalatable to its hearing.
The arrest and remand of Madam Salomey Awiti Bafoh, a devoted mother of three children, a Ghanaian senior nurse, and an alleged accomplice of the vociferous and invisible social media political discussant, who goes by the name, Ghana Jolof, cannot be allowed to go without comment.
Of course, Madam Salomey Awiti Bafoh has an inherent right to the presumption of innocence. Suffice it to emphasise that it is the job of the Police to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, or to establish a prima facie case, and not a job for the suspect to prove her innocence.
Madam Salomey Awiti Bafoh,, a mother of three young children, is being remanded in prison custody for two weeks for allegedly aiding and abetting a clamorous social media political activist,, ‘Ghana Jolof’ to disseminate her perceived offensive contents.
What is more troubling is the fact that the government of Ghana seems oblivious to the insults being directed at its opponents, and conveniently resorting to selective justice.
Needless to say, the inalienable human rights are interrelated, indivisible, interdependent, and universal, and therefore the enjoyment of such rights is not a preserve of a few.
It goes without saying that a gamut of extant human rights literature attributes the emergence of the United Nations human rights regime to the past unchecked human rights violations by various governments ( Waltz, 2001; Kabasakal, 2006 ).
The United Nations General Assembly, in an attempt to fortifying the civil and political rights of all the members of the human family, adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966, alluding to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stresses that the “ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic, social and cultural rights” (UN 1948).
More so, the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has been expressed severally in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN 1948) and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UN 1966).
In addition, the prevention of torture is contained in the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from being subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (UN 1975).
In the grand scheme of things, the United Nations General Assembly, as detailed in Article 2 of the Convention against Torture, urges member states to take ‘effective legislative,administrative,judicial and other measures for the prevention of torture, and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (UN 1984).
It is, however, worth noting that civil rights refer to freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and association, and the freedom of religious expression (UN 1966).
Whereas personal integrity rights refer to rights such as freedom from unlawful and political imprisonment, freedom from torture, freedom from unlawful physical or other harm, freedom from cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to a fair trial (UN 1966).
Article 1.1 of the Torture Convention defines torture as: “For the purpose of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.”
Under the terms of reference of the human rights regime, once a human rights covenant or treaty is ratified, the ratified state is expected to adhere to the treaty provisions (UN 1969).
Gratifyingly, however, Ghana has duly ratified both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(UN 1966) and the prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment(UN 1984)
Thus, Ghana is obliged to protect the civil and personal integrity rights of every denizen and citizen of Ghana.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the right to freedom of opinion and expression is encapsulated in international law -Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
More importantly, the freedom of opinion and expression has been given meaning in Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
Free speech is an inalienable right to seek, receive and convey information and ideas of all kinds, by any means which may be deemed appropriate.
In other words, free speech and the right to freedom of expression denote the ideas of all kinds, including queer and unpopular ideas and statements which “shock, offend or disturb.
That being said, hate speech – the advocacy of hatred based on nationality, race, tribe or religion – occupies an exceptional position in international law, and therefore states are obliged to prohibit all forms of hate speech.
In addition, the right of free speech and expression does not extend to sedition, slander, defamation and obscenity.
There is no contention of the fact that free speech does not give the right to individuals to say or write whatever they want, whenever they like, without permitted abridgement.
However, the fact that freedom of opinion and expression is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions does not mean that the right can be curtailed capriciously according to the legislative, executive or judicial discretion.
This right, like others, may be restricted to protect and balance other rights and interests. However, it is the complexion and the degree of these restrictions that is often contended in extant human rights and security jurisprudence.
The ways in which restrictions are to be determined and imposed and the criteria which apply to the formulation of permitted abridgement are pivotal.
In fact, if freedom of opinion and expression is to be meaningful, it cannot however be subject to crude majoritarian dictates. And, if freedom of opinion and expression was to become subject to ordinary legislature, executive or judicial control, it would be no different from any other statutory right which the authorities are free to confer and withdraw at their pleasure.
Thus, the restriction of freedom of opinion and expression becomes a crucial and delicate question. For any restrictions cannot be based on ideological perceptions of legislature, executive or judicial, but must be predicated on objectively founded and comprehended criteria.
Indeed, freedom of opinion and expression may be subject to restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: “For respect of the rights or reputations of others; for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals”.
Recently, The social media ‘Bin Ladin’, Kevin Taylor, who domiciles in the U.S, came out and audaciously told the good people of Ghana that he has been hired by President Mahama to ‘insult’ his critics and adversaries in the name of politics(emphasis mine).
Kevin Taylor’s puzzling revelation could well explain why he impudently incites, attacks, and insults Ghanaians and yet gets protection from the government.
If you would recall, between July and August 2025, while in Ghana, the abusive Kevin Taylor was set free over his charges of smearing a judge and a competent court of jurisdiction.
More regrettably, it was alleged that the state used the taxpayers money to protect the insulting Kevin Taylor and his family whilst in Ghana. How bizarre?
Fellow Ghanaians, let’s be honest, if those who put the state resources at the disposal of the irresponsible Kevin Taylor did not cause a financial loss to the state, what is it then?
If President Mahama has indeed tasked Kevin Taylor to attack his adversaries, where then lies the justification for the recent arrests and detentions of his critics over free speech and freedom of opinion?
The social media ‘Bin Ladin’, Kevin Taylor, has somehow found it convenient to preach hate speech and incitement and abuse all sorts of people, including the Asantehene, the Akyemhene, the Volta chiefs, the Fante chiefs, amongst others without being reprimanded by the Mahama’s administration.
The loudmouthed Kevin Taylor evidently insults people indiscriminately, and once insolently vowed to burn some chiefs and their palaces.
Let us be honest, fellow Ghanaians,, what is more offensive and inciteful than that?
Taylor has regrettably been hiding behind the cloak of freedom of opinion and expression and persistently abusing innocent people and inciting hate speech day in and day out.
Suffice it to stress that incitement, instigation, abetment and solicitation are all common to various criminal codes world-wide, including Ghana.
The strident Kevin Taylor has consistently been trampling upon the living, the dead, the spirits, and the gods, without being admonished.
Needless to say, Article 20(2) of the ICCPR requires states to prohibit hate speech: “Any advocacy of national, tribe, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
Apparently, an incitement to commit an illegal act is in itself illegal under international law.
Moreover, incitement, instigation, abetment and solicitation are all common to various criminal codes world-wide.
These are generally considered "inchoate offense[s]" or "a step toward[s] the commission of another crime, the step itself being serious enough to merit punishment”.
In the English common law for instance, there are three general inchoate offenses: 1) attempt; 2) conspiracy; and 3) incitement.
“ Incitement conveys a "general label to cover any use of words or other device by which a person is requested, urged, advised, and counselled, tempted, commanded, or otherwise enticed to commit a crime."
We hereby humbly remind the Mahama government that free speech and freedom of opinion are inalienable human rights, which have permitted abridgment. Nonetheless, such rights cannot be curtailed capriciously according to the legislative, executive or judicial discretion
May God bless our homeland Ghana!
K. Badu, UK.
[email protected]
'Systemic failure due to NACOC removal from port inspections' – Inusah Fuseini o...
Akyem Oda commercial drivers raise fares arbitrarily amid commuter concerns
Two arrested over alleged GH¢22,000 SHS placement scam
Police uncover alleged network behind Ghana Jollof videos
NACOC says cocaine suspects were under surveillance for up to two years
Suhuyini assures Accra-Kumasi Expressway won’t miss December 2028 deadline
Foreign Affairs Ministry releases 200-page RTI response on GH¢49.7m South Africa...
Chartered flights account for GH¢27.18m of South Africa evacuation cost
Foreign Affairs Ministry requests special audit of emergency evacuations since 2...
France calls on Moscow to reverse takeover of European assets
