GJA Warns: Cybersecurity Amendment Bill 2025 Poses Risk to Press Freedom in Ghana

Introduction

In a timely alert during the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists, the President of the Ghana Journalists Association (GJA), Albert Kwabena Dwumfuor, has cautioned that certain provisions in the Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill 2025 could undermine press freedom in Ghana and freedom of expression. Delivered at a press briefing in Accra on November 3, 2025, these remarks highlight the delicate balance between strengthening national cybersecurity and safeguarding constitutional rights under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.

This development underscores ongoing debates about Ghana cybersecurity laws and their potential impact on media freedom. While the GJA supports government initiatives to combat rising online threats, it emphasizes the need for extensive public consultation to prevent unintended erosion of democratic pillars like journalistic independence. This article breaks down the GJA’s position, analyzes key concerns, and provides pedagogical insights into why such consultations are vital for balancing security and rights.

Analysis

GJA President’s Key Statements

Albert Kwabena Dwumfuor articulated the GJA’s dual stance: endorsement of efforts to bolster Ghana’s cybersecurity framework while flagging risks to fundamental freedoms. He stressed that the amendment process must protect rights enshrined in the 1992 Constitution, particularly those related to free speech and media operations.

“We call for wide engagement, public consultation, and education to fine-tune the bill so that everyone directly impacted understands and provides the needed input in the public interest,” Dwumfuor stated. This call reflects a pedagogical approach to lawmaking, where stakeholder education ensures informed contributions and minimizes adversarial outcomes.

Context of the International Day Event

The briefing coincided with the global observance of the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists, established by the United Nations to address violence against media workers. In Ghana, this event amplifies discussions on press freedom threats, positioning the GJA’s warnings within a broader narrative of protecting journalists from both physical and regulatory harms.

Broader Stakeholder Concerns

Civil society organizations (CSOs), media segments, and the Minority in Parliament echo the GJA’s apprehensions. They fear the bill’s provisions on regulatory oversight and online threats could be misused to suppress dissent, target critical journalists, or limit public discourse on government actions. This convergence of voices illustrates the pedagogical value of multi-stakeholder dialogue in legislative processes.

Summary

The GJA warns that without thorough consultation, the Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill 2025 risks compromising press freedom in Ghana. While aimed at addressing cyber threats and aligning with international standards, hasty implementation could harm media independence—a cornerstone of democratic accountability. Dwumfuor urges Parliament to involve journalists, CSOs, digital rights advocates, and experts, ensuring the law promotes responsible online behavior without curtailing expression.

Key Points

Practical Advice

How Journalists and Media Houses Can Engage

To actively participate in shaping the Cybersecurity Amendment Bill Ghana, journalists should submit formal memoranda to Parliament’s relevant committees, such as the Subsidiary Legislation Committee or Communications Committee. Attend public hearings when announced and collaborate with the GJA for unified submissions. Document specific provisions perceived as threats to media freedom Ghana and propose balanced alternatives, like clear exemptions for journalistic activities.

Steps for Civil Society and Citizens

CSOs can organize town halls or webinars to educate communities on cybersecurity laws’ implications for free speech. Use platforms like the Parliament of Ghana’s website to track the bill’s progress and submit public comments. Digital rights advocates should leverage tools from organizations like the Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) to analyze draft texts and advocate for safeguards.

Educational Outreach for Broader Awareness

Host workshops explaining cybersecurity concepts—such as data protection and cybercrime definitions—in relation to press rights. Resources from the UNESCO’s media safety guidelines can pedagogically frame these discussions, empowering stakeholders to contribute meaningfully.

Points of Caution

Risks of Hasty Legislation

Dwumfuor warned, “If what the amendment seeks to remedy will aggravate the cyber ecosystem, then we must tread cautiously.” Rushing could embed vague terms like “national security threats” that ambiguously cover journalistic reporting, leading to self-censorship among media outlets.

Potential for Misuse Against Critics

Concerns from multiple quarters highlight how enhanced regulatory powers might target government critics. Historical precedents in other nations show cybersecurity laws sometimes chilling investigative journalism on corruption or policy failures.

Impact on Democratic Accountability

Any curtailment of media work under cybersecurity pretexts erodes transparency, as the GJA reaffirms its commitment to defending these rights. Citizens should monitor for provisions lacking judicial oversight, which could enable arbitrary enforcement.

Comparison

GJA’s Balanced Approach vs. Pure Opposition

Unlike outright opposition from some Minority voices, the GJA’s position is constructive: full support for cybersecurity goals with safeguards for press freedom. This mirrors balanced reforms in Kenya’s 2018 Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, which included media exemptions after consultations.

Ghana vs. Regional Cybersecurity Frameworks

Ghana’s bill aligns with ECOWAS directives on cybercrime, similar to Nigeria’s 2015 Cybercrimes Act, which faced criticism for broad speech restrictions but was amended post-consultation. Pedagogically, Ghana can learn from Rwanda’s 2021 law, which integrated journalist protections explicitly.

Global Benchmarks

Internationally, the EU’s GDPR and NIS2 Directive emphasize proportionality, ensuring cybersecurity measures do not infringe on Article 10 ECHR freedoms. Ghana’s process could adopt similar impact assessments to prevent press freedom threats.

Legal Implications

Ghana’s 1992 Constitution explicitly protects relevant rights. Article 21 guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while Article 162 vests media independence in editorial discretion, free from state control. Any Cybersecurity Amendment Bill 2025 provisions conflicting with these could face judicial review via the Supreme Court under Article 2(1), declaring them void for unconstitutionality.

The GJA’s advocacy invokes these articles, stressing that cybersecurity reforms must pass muster against fundamental human rights. Precedents like New Patriotic Party v. Inspector-General of Police (1993) affirm strict scrutiny for laws impacting expression. Thus, broad consultations are not optional but legally prudent to avoid challenges.

Conclusion

The GJA’s warning on the Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill 2025 serves as a clarion call for inclusive lawmaking in Ghana. By prioritizing public consultation, Parliament can craft robust cybersecurity regulations that fortify digital defenses without imperiling press freedom in Ghana. This balanced path upholds the media’s role as democracy’s watchdog, ensuring transparency and accountability endure amid evolving cyber challenges. Stakeholders must act swiftly to engage, safeguarding rights for generations.

FAQ