The Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) commends the Ministry of Communications, Digitalisation and Innovation for initiating a review of Ghana’s digital governance laws through the introduction of 15 new Bills and for opening up the process to public participation. Legislative transparency is essential for building trust, strengthening national institutions, and ensuring that laws reflect the needs and rights of citizens, industry, and civil society.
We welcome the Ministry’s commitment to addressing urgent challenges such as deliberate falsehoods, cybersecurity threats, and the management gaps in Ghana’s digital infrastructure. These are critical national priorities for which a consultative approach to law-making has the added value of enlisting the cooperation and commitment of all who are involved with, interested in, or affected by their enactment and enforcement.
Our analysis, however, identifies a number of provisions that, in their current form, pose significant threats to constitutional rights, particularly of freedom of expression, media independence, privacy, and due process. As a rights-oriented advocacy organisation, the MFWA is averse to any enactments that unduly vitiate, or have the possibility to bridle back, the fundamental rights to free expression, media freedom and digital rights.
It is in this spirit that we offer the following observations and recommendations; to help ensure the Bills are constructive in both intent and effect of promoting Ghana’s democratic values.
Misinformation, Disinformation, Hate Speech and Publication of Other Information (MDHI) Bill, 2025
Key Concerns:
- Unconstitutional Licensing Regime (Sections 68 (4) & 84 (3))
The Bill suggests the introduction of a licensing-based sanction system for media and content creators, contradicting Article 162(3) of Ghana’s Constitution, which prohibits control or censorship of the media through licensing. Retaining this provision risks the chilling effect of implicitly imposing the epistemic authority of the Executive on a politically pluralistic society. - Broad Definitions and Criminalisation of Speech
The bill’s objectives are broad, wide and sweeping, which, when read together with the custodial sentences for offenders, risk reintroducing the criminal, libel and seditious provisions that were repealed in 2001. These provisions could have undue punitive repercussions for accountability journalism and other forms of expression. The definition of hate speech, which includes merely “promoting negative feelings,” not only lowers the threshold below international standards, but is also too elastic to assure against abuse; including the spectre of criminalising legitimate difference or even dissent. The MFWA believes that imposing custodial penalties for speech offences is antithetical to international best practice. - Reversal of the Burden of Proof (Section 30(6) & 31(8))
Shifting the responsibility to prove the truth of election and public health related information onto the accused violates the presumption of innocence under Article 19(2)(c) of Ghana’s Constitution. This, we believe, is incompatible with due process and opens the door to prosecutorial abuse. - Executive Control Over Enforcement (Sections 9, 10, 11 & 12)
Locating a body which deals with the enforcement and adjudication of freedom of expression issues within a ministerially directed Division undermines the body’s institutional independence risking government abuse and overreach. The powers and function granted to this body should instead be placed under a constitutionally independent body, such as the National Media Commission. - No or limited attempt to hold Big Tech and Digital Platform Owners to Account (Sections 69, 78, & 80 (1))
International efforts aimed at addressing the impacts of misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech on society, including UNESCO’s guidelines on governance of digital media platforms, EU’s Digital Services Act and Digital Marketing Act, have focused on holding accountable the digital platform owners and the large online platforms. While the MDHI bill demands greater accountability from users of digital platforms, it requests little or no transparency or accountability from platform owners, whose contributions are significant in enabling the pervasive spread of harmful content; and which should have the responsibility and resources for abating their incidence.
The MFWA urges a comprehensive redrafting of the MDHI Bill. Harmful content can be addressed through constitutionally compliant, narrowly tailored legislation that protects public order without curtailing free expression, media independence, or political participation.
Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill, 2025
Key Concerns:
- Granting Police Powers Without Safeguards (Section 20B)
Extending police-like powers to Authority officers without explicit safeguards invites potential abuse, misuse, or selective use. Clear procedural limitations, judicial oversight, and accountability mechanisms must be incorporated. - Broad Cyberbullying Offences (Section 67A)
The current wording may be used to penalise legitimate criticism, satire, or activism; thereby attenuating the watchdog role of the media and public accountability activists. Narrower definitions are necessary to ensure protection against genuine harm while safeguarding free speech. - Opaque Processes for Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) Designation (Section 35)
The designation of CII must be transparent, consultative, and governed by due process standards. Arbitrary or opaque designation could affect media platforms, civil society organisations, and private actors in ways that restrict their ability to operate.
The Bill could be significantly strengthened by adding explicit human rights safeguards and narrowing overly vague provisions. Proper balance between security and rights protection is both necessary and achievable.
Ghana Domain Name Registry (GDNR) Bill, 2025
Key Concerns:
- Absence of Civil Society Representation (Section 5(1))
The multi-stakeholder nature of internet governance requires that the insights and interests of civil society, particularly digital rights experts, be accounted for by their representation on the Registry’s Governing Body. Their exclusion weakens the Board’s diversity and accountability. - Mandatory Registration (Section 20)
Requiring mandatory domain registration for private actors risks creating operational bottlenecks and risks for transnational organisations, and unnecessary burdens for small businesses and citizens. It also invites legitimate concerns about privacy as the government will in effect be responsible for the security, maintenance and access to the digital platforms of the public. The requirement should apply mainly to public sector entities. - Lack of Explicit Commitments to Due Process (Section 25)
Powers relating to enforcement and judicial support must include a clear commitment to international good-practice standards on privacy, due process, and digital rights.
Amending the Bill to ensure multi-stakeholder governance, proportional regulation, and strong rights protections will align Ghana with best international practice.
Conclusion
Ghana has long been a regional leader in media freedom, democratic governance, and the protection of rights. The current legislative review presents an opportunity to reaffirm that leadership by adopting modern, effective laws that uphold constitutional principles while responding to emerging digital challenges.
The MFWA, however, notes that the timeframe provided by the Ministry for public feedback on the 15 new Bills was limited and respectfully requests an extension, in line with the recent petition submitted by civil society organisations, to allow for broader participation and meaningful input from all stakeholders.
The MFWA remains committed to constructive engagement with the Ministry, Parliament, and other stakeholders. We look forward to the integration of our recommended amendments, in the feedback submissions to the Ministry, to help ensure that these new Bills reinforce, rather than restrict, the rights and freedoms that underpin Ghana’s democracy.
