GIMPA Law School’s Landmark Submission on Ghana’s Misinformation Bill 2025: Protecting Truth Without Silencing Freedom

Discover how GIMPA Law School’s student-led analysis of the MDHI Bill critiques overreach and proposes balanced reforms for Ghana’s disinformation fight.

Introduction

Ghana’s digital landscape faces growing threats from misinformation and disinformation, prompting the Ministry of Communication, Digital Technology and Innovations to draft the Misinformation, Disinformation, Hate Speech and Publication of Other Information (MDHI) Bill, 2025. This legislation seeks to address deliberate falsehoods, hate speech, and harmful content sharing. In response, the GIMPA Law School’s Department of Public Law and Governance submitted a comprehensive critique on November 10, 2025.

What began as a classroom exercise in the Law and Technology course evolved into a rigorous, faculty-guided evaluation by students. They examined the bill’s 80+ sections against Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. This GIMPA Law School submission on Ghana Misinformation Bill advocates safeguarding society from disinformation while upholding free expression, press freedom, and civic engagement.

The submission highlights the bill’s noble goals but warns against vague provisions that could enable censorship. As Ghana navigates disinformation regulation in Ghana, this analysis offers pedagogical insights into balancing security and rights.

Analysis

The GIMPA submission provides a line-by-line dissection of the MDHI Bill, identifying risks to democratic discourse. It emphasizes that effective hate speech regulation in Ghana must avoid chilling legitimate speech.

Core Objectives and Object Clause Concerns

The bill’s object clause aims to protect individuals from “disrepute, embarrassment, or ridicule.” GIMPA argues this phrasing risks state overreach into satire, political commentary, and journalism. The recommendation: Narrow it to demonstrable harm to national security, public order, health, or others’ rights, ensuring necessity and proportionality in a democracy.

False and Misleading Information Provisions

Sections 19 and 22 impose sanctions for publishing “false or misleading” information without requiring intent or proven harm, creating strict liability. GIMPA defines falsity as material inaccuracy with intent, recklessness, or negligence causing verifiable harm—like violence, health risks, economic loss, or election interference. This distinguishes disinformation from honest errors or debates in the “marketplace of ideas.”

State Institutions’ Role in Redress

Allowing public bodies to sue for “official defamation” inverts accountability, as the state holds significant communicative power. GIMPA proposes counterspeech and corrections over sanctions, except for imminent threats to life or safety.

Public Health and Election Periods

The bill shifts the burden of proof and allows quick takedowns during emergencies and elections (within 21 days of voting). GIMPA recommends standard proof requirements, High Court approval within 48 hours for blocks, and evidence of intentional falsehoods threatening outcomes.

Hate Speech Calibration

Aligning with the Rabat Plan of Action and Ghana’s Criminal Offences Act, GIMPA supports criminalizing only hate advocacy inciting imminent violence. Offensive speech should face counterspeech and education, not jail, to avoid criminalizing dissent.

Privacy, Confidentiality, and Whistleblowing

While protecting data and secrets, vague wording threatens journalism. GIMPA introduces public interest defenses under the Right to Information Act for proportionate disclosures of corruption or abuses.

Institutional Design Flaws

The proposed Division under the National Communications Authority (NCA), with executive appointments, lacks independence. GIMPA’s blueprint: A multi-stakeholder body with nominees from judiciary, CHRAJ, media commission, academia, civil society; secure tenure and budget.

Procedural Safeguards

Extend response times to seven days (72 hours for emergencies), ensure hearings, evidence disclosure, and public registries. Prioritize corrections over removals; court orders for blocks after proportionality tests. No account closures without incitement to violence.

Sanctions and Platform Compliance

Eliminate jail for non-violent speech; scale fines to turnover. Shift to education and counterspeech. Tier compliance for platforms: Strict for large ones, co-regulation for smaller via media bodies.

Summary

GIMPA Law School’s submission transforms academic scrutiny into policy advocacy, critiquing the MDHI Bill’s vagueness and proposing rights-respecting alternatives. It benchmarks against international standards, urging a shift from control to empowerment in Ghana’s fight against disinformation.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For policymakers refining the Ghana Misinformation Bill 2025:

1. Incorporate intent requirements to avoid strict liability.
2. Establish an independent authority with diverse representation.
3. Promote media literacy programs as primary defense against disinformation.
4. For citizens and journalists: Document public interest in disclosures; use RTI Act for transparency.
5. Platforms: Adopt voluntary fact-checking aligned with co-regulation codes.

These steps foster freedom of expression in Ghana while curbing harms.

Points of Caution

The submission warns:

• Vague terms like “false” invite arbitrary enforcement.
• State redress powers undermine accountability.
• Emergency provisions could silence scrutiny during elections.
• Criminalizing offense risks dissent suppression.
• Heavy platform burdens stifle innovation.
• “Truth cannot be protected by fear”—prioritize proportionality.

Comparison

Vs. International Standards

The MDHI Bill diverges from ICCPR Article 19, requiring restrictions be necessary and proportionate. GIMPA aligns proposals with this, unlike stricter models in some nations (e.g., Singapore’s POFMA enables quick corrections but mandates independence).

Vs. African Peers

Compared to Kenya’s Computer Misuse Act (criticized for vagueness) or South Africa’s Prevention of Hate Speech Bill, GIMPA emphasizes multi-stakeholder oversight, echoing Malawi’s balanced approach.

Vs. Ghana’s Existing Laws

Harmonizes with Criminal Offences Act (hate speech) and RTI Act, avoiding overlaps.

Legal Implications

If enacted unchanged, the MDHI Bill could face constitutional challenges under Article 21 (free speech) and Article 162 (press freedom) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution. GIMPA’s amendments ensure compliance, preventing Supreme Court invalidation like past cybercrime laws. Platforms risk liability without intent proofs, potentially violating ICCPR obligations ratified by Ghana. Whistleblowers gain defenses, aligning with Article 162(4)-(6).

Conclusion

GIMPA Law School’s submission exemplifies civic scholarship, turning classrooms into policy labs. By advocating participatory governance over punitive control, it charts a path for Ghana’s digital democracy. Policymakers should heed calls for balance: Combat disinformation through transparency and literacy, not censorship. Success positions Ghana as an African leader in rights-sensitive regulation—a “Republic of Reason” where truth thrives alongside freedom.

FAQ