In every democracy, freedom of speech remains one of the most cherished rights of the people. Citizens must be free to criticise governments, question leaders, express frustrations, and engage in political debate without fear of persecution. Democracy itself cannot survive where fear silences public opinion. Yet, freedom of speech was never intended to become a shield for reckless threats, calls to violence, or dangerous political incitement capable of plunging a nation into chaos.
Today in Ghana, the growing normalisation of inflammatory political speech should concern every citizen regardless of political affiliation. The increasing trend where political actors, party communicators, activists, and even ordinary supporters openly make threatening statements on radio, television, and social media is gradually poisoning the country’s democratic atmosphere. If this dangerous culture is not confronted honestly and fairly, Ghana risks nurturing divisions that could one day explode into political unrest.
The Constitution of Ghana guarantees freedom of speech under Article 21(1)(a), which provides that “all persons shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression.” However, that same constitutional freedom does not permit incitement to violence, threats against individuals, or speech likely to endanger public order and national security.
Ghana’s criminal laws also provide limitations against dangerous speech. Under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), particularly provisions relating to offensive conduct conducive to breaches of the peace, publication of false news, and threats of harm, individuals may be prosecuted where their words are likely to provoke violence, panic, or public disorder. The Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775), especially in the age of social media, also prohibits the use of communication platforms to transmit messages that threaten public peace or national security.
There is a critical distinction between free speech and incitement. This distinction is extremely important. There is a clear difference between legitimate political expression and dangerous incitement. Statements such as “The government is failing,” “Vote out this incompetent administration,” or “We will resist intimidation during elections” etc., fall within the boundaries of democratic free speech and political participation. However, statements such as “Go and kill a particular president for us,” “Attack supporters of the other party,” or “The country should burn if our party loses” etc., go beyond free expression and cross into incitement, threats, and dangerous political extremism capable of provoking violence and destabilising the country. We need to appreciate and cherish the current political peace and stability we enjoy.
Unfortunately, both the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) have, over the years, produced individuals whose statements have generated national outrage and fears of violence.
Former President Nana Akufo-Addo’s infamous “All die be die” statement remains one of the most controversial political expressions in Ghana’s Fourth Republic. Although he later explained that he was encouraging resistance against intimidation, many critics viewed the statement as inflammatory and capable of provoking political violence. Years later, former President John Dramani Mahama’s “boot for boot” and “do or die” comments also generated intense national debate, with opponents accusing him of encouraging confrontation during elections.
There have also been several controversial statements by party communicators and activists from both sides. Some individuals linked to the NDC have reportedly made reckless comments suggesting violence against political opponents, while certain figures within the NPP have also been accused of inflammatory rhetoric, threats, ethnic hostility, and provocative political language. In some cases, arrests were made. In other cases, political actors were defended by their parties while opponents making similar comments were condemned. This inconsistency is one of the greatest dangers facing Ghana’s democracy today.
The NPP, in particular, must reflect seriously on the growing public perception that some of its members justify dangerous political rhetoric when it favours them but condemn and criminalise similar conduct when power changes hands or when opponents speak in similar tones. Over the years, several controversial statements by individuals associated with the NPP were defended as mere political expressions or misunderstood comments. Yet, when similar rhetoric emerges from opponents, the same party often demands arrests, prosecutions, and public outrage.
This double standard weakens national confidence in democratic fairness and fuels political bitterness. Ghanaians cannot build a peaceful democracy where parties defend recklessness when committed by their own members but condemn it only when it comes from opponents. Dangerous speech cannot become acceptable merely because it originates from one’s political side.
At the same time, this issue must not become an excuse for selective justice. The law must apply equally to all citizens regardless of political party, social status, or influence. If one person is arrested for threatening statements, another person making similar threats must equally face the law. Justice loses credibility where political favouritism determines who is punished and who is protected.
The greatest victims of this toxic political culture are often the youth. Many young people, driven by unemployment, frustration, political excitement, or the desire for online popularity, now rush to social media platforms to insult, threaten, provoke, and spread dangerous political messages without considering the consequences. Some speak as though elections are wars rather than democratic contests. Others issue reckless threats in live videos and audio recordings merely to impress political leaders who may never even recognise them.
The youth of Ghana must reject this path. No politician’s ambition is worth dying for. No political party deserves blind loyalty at the expense of national peace. Ghana’s democracy remains one of the country’s greatest achievements, and protecting it requires maturity, discipline, and responsible communication from both leaders and supporters.
Young people must invest their energy in productive ventures that improve their future; education, entrepreneurship, farming, skills training, technology, creative arts, and legitimate employment opportunities. The future belongs not to those who spread hatred online but to those who build themselves and contribute positively to society.
Political parties must also train their communicators and activists to embrace issue-based politics rather than inflammatory propaganda. Radio stations, television platforms, and social media influencers must act responsibly by refusing to promote speeches capable of inflaming tensions. Religious leaders, traditional authorities, civil society organisations, and the media all have a role to play in protecting Ghana’s peace.
History has shown across Africa and beyond that nations do not descend into conflict overnight. Violence often begins gradually, with reckless speeches, tolerated threats, political hatred, propaganda, and leaders who refuse to condemn extremism within their own ranks. Ghana must never allow such seeds to grow.
Freedom of speech is a democratic right. Incitement to violence is not. The nation must defend the former without tolerating the latter.
The Trial News
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!