The Minority Leader in Parliament, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has strongly condemned the one-year custodial sentence handed to TikToker Camilla Al Hasan, describing it as disproportionate and a miscarriage of justice.
Addressing the press in Parliament, Afenyo-Markin argued that the sentence, handed down on Thursday, 16 July 2026, for “offensive conduct conducive to a breach of the peace” under Section 207 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, was completely excessive.
“Our demand is basically that these two sections must go. We demand an end to the criminalization of criticism and call on government to finish what the administration started in two thousand and one,” he stated.
The Minority Leader revealed that the Police Service intends to prosecute Miss Al Hasan a second time under Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act for the same underlying conduct.
“We the minority condemn both the prosecution and the conviction. A one year custodial sentence with hard labour for a social media post is not proportionate. It is not justice. It is a warning shot fired at every Ghanaian who owns a smartphone,” Afenyo-Markin said.
Citing other instances of state-led intimidation, he mentioned the cases of Kwame Baffoe, alias Abronya DC, who was remanded on similar charges before securing a GH₵100,000 bail; Al Hasan Abdul Rahman, arrested in Tamale over a Facebook post; and Alfred Abebio Kumi, who was detained over a petition to the President.
According to him, the state is covertly resurrecting criminal libel through Sections 207 and 208 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act.
“We have to call it what it is. Criminal libel through the back door. Let us not be delicate about this because delicacy will not serve the truth,” he said.
He maintained that the 2001 repeal of the criminal libel law under the Kufuor administration was left incomplete because Sections 207 and 208 were left intact.
“We are not asking government to invent something new. We the mighty minority are asking government to take the next step on a road this country has already chosen to walk,” he added.
Hon. Afenyo-Markin further raised concerns over pre-dawn raids conducted by masked officers, warning that such actions aim to terrorise citizens into digital silence and risk leaving Ghana behind on international standards of free expression.
“It is the posture of a state seeking to make an example to frighten the next commentator into silence before they press ‘post’,” he said. “This is not simply a Ghanaian argument. It is where the law is moving everywhere that takes free expression seriously.”
He pointed out that the United Kingdom, where Section 207 originated, removed the word “insulting” from its public order law in 2014. Similarly, Kenya’s Court of Appeal struck down false publication offences in March this year, describing them as “guided missiles likely to trap innocent citizens,” while the Zambian High Court reached a similar conclusion in 2014.
“Ghana was once the leader of this question in Africa. We should not now be the country still holding onto the law that London, Nairobi and Lusaka have each in their own way moved beyond,” Hon. Afenyo-Markin said.
Clarifying the opposition’s stance, the Minority Leader emphasised that they are not seeking a licence for reckless speech, but are firmly opposed to using incarceration as a primary tool to handle speech that merely embarrasses public officials.
“We are not saying that the repeal of this law should be a license for irresponsible speech. That is not what we are saying,” the Minority stated. “We condemn irresponsible speech and irresponsible publication in all its forms. Whoever is responsible for it and regardless of which party that person supports.”
He added that Ghana already boasts adequate civil and regulatory avenues for redress when individuals are defamed or misrepresented.
“A citizen who is defended, insulted or misrepresented is entitled to redress and Ghana already provides it. A private citizen may sue for defamation in civil courts. A journalist or a media house that abuses its platform can be held to account by the National Media Commission,” it said.
The Minority caucus maintained that existing laws, specifically Sections 74 and 75 of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, already sufficiently punish genuine threats to safety and public peace without criminalising ordinary expression.
“What we object is the use of the prison cell and the criminal record as the first resort for free speech that merely offends or embarrasses rather than the last resort for conduct that genuinely threatens a person’s safety or the public peace.”
