A Ghanaian citizen, Austin Kwabena Brako-Powers, has taken a case to the Supreme Court to challenge parts of two laws on false information.
He argues that the laws violate freedom of speech and have been used to unfairly criminalise public expression.
In a writ filed under the court’s original jurisdiction, Austin Kwabena Brako-Powers wants the Supreme Court to declare portions of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), and the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775), unconstitutional.
The case focuses on Section 208 of Act 29, which makes it a crime to publish statements, rumours, or reports that could cause fear, panic, or disturb public peace.
It also challenges Section 76 of Act 775, which deals with sending “false or misleading” information through electronic communication.
According to the plaintiff, both laws are unclear and too broad in scope. He says the provisions wrongly place the burden on accused persons to prove that they took reasonable steps to confirm information before sharing it.
He believes this goes against the constitutional right to be presumed innocent under Article 19(2)(c).
He also argues that the laws undermine freedom of speech, expression, and press freedom protected under Articles 21 and 162 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
The suit further questions laws that allow authorities to prosecute people for false or misleading information without proving intent or recklessness.
The plaintiff says this creates a “chilling effect” on journalists, media workers, and ordinary citizens, making people afraid to speak freely.
He has therefore asked the court to interpret the laws more narrowly. In his view, criminal punishment should apply only to people who knowingly spread false information with the intention of endangering lives or disrupting essential services.
The plaintiff is also asking the court to declare that any ongoing or future prosecutions under the disputed sections would be unconstitutional.
He says such prosecutions would also conflict with international human rights agreements, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In addition, he wants the Supreme Court to strike out the challenged provisions either completely or partially. He has also requested any other relief the court considers appropriate.
