Mahama warns against arrests over criticism as he calls for action on online hate speech

The President has asked two media organisations to bring journalists, content creators, police and rights experts together to examine harmful online speech.

His letter warns that arrests over mere criticism could undermine public confidence.

President John Dramani Mahama has called for a national discussion on hate speech and harmful online content, while warning against disproportionate arrests over criticism and political commentary.

In a letter dated 22 September 2026, the Presidency asked the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) and the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA) to jointly convene the engagement. It said the aim was to develop a response to harmful digital content that also protects freedom of expression.

The letter identifies hate speech, threats and incitement as conduct that must be addressed. But it says legitimate criticism, political commentary, satire and dissent must not be criminalised.

“The President is particularly concerned that disproportionate arrests over mere criticism or politically charged commentary may be counterproductive,” it says, adding that such action could undermine public confidence in state institutions.

The Presidency says public debate is increasingly shaped by bloggers, influencers, content creators and users of platforms such as TikTok, alongside traditional media. Some of those with large audiences, it says, are not necessarily covered by recognised editorial standards or clear accountability

mechanisms.

It has asked the MFWA and GJA to bring together a broad range of participants, including the National Media Commission, Ghana Police Service, civil society groups, religious bodies, legal and human rights experts, digital creators, and relevant regulators and security institutions. Representatives of digital platforms should also take part where possible, the letter says.

The proposed engagement is to assess Ghana’s existing legal and regulatory framework, clarify the distinction between lawful criticism and unlawful speech, and suggest practical guidelines for law enforcement. Participants are also asked to consider whether policy, legislative, regulatory or other measures are needed.