Constitutional Rights and Policy Strategy Adviser at Democracy Hub, Oliver Barker‑Vormawor, addressed JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, September 19, urging Ghanaian courts to exercise greater vigilance in protecting constitutional rights in cases involving social media speech. He said alleged violations of suspects’ rights should not be overlooked simply because criminal allegations are before the courts.
The case centres on senior nursing officer Salomey Awiti Bafoh, 40, who was arrested at her home in Hansua, near Techiman, on September 13. Bafoh appeared before the Adentan Circuit Court, pleaded not guilty to abetment of crime under Sections 20(1) and 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, and was denied bail, remanded for two weeks with the case adjourned to September 30.
Prosecutors allege Bafoh acted as a liaison for UK‑based TikTok user Barbara Asantewaa Kodua, known online as “Ghana Jollof”, and helped recruit others to redistribute videos produced by Kodua. Claims that some material contained statements capable of provoking violence remain allegations and have not been established by the court.
Barker‑Vormawor acknowledged that law enforcement could have a legitimate interest in investigating potentially criminal online content, but insisted that the state must clearly demonstrate where the alleged criminality lies. He questioned whether authorities had identified the specific material that allegedly crossed the line from offensive or displeasing speech into criminal conduct, noting that Bafoh was described as a regular online commentator.
He highlighted an audio recording alleging a coup at Jubilee House, saying such an allegation could raise concerns under laws dealing with false publications that cause fear and panic, but cautioned that it should not automatically be treated as participation in treasonous conduct.
Barker‑Vormawor stressed that his criticism of the case handling should not be seen as an endorsement of the content attributed to Bafoh or the “Ghana Jollof” platform. He argued that the question before the public is whether the state is responding to such material within the appropriate legal and constitutional framework.
He raised concerns about police communication, noting that public notices should accurately reflect that an individual is resident outside Ghana. Inconsistencies, he said, can contribute to perceptions that law‑enforcement action is driven by political considerations.
He also questioned the reliance on mobile‑money transactions in the case, arguing that the existence of financial transactions alone does not establish that money was provided for the commission of a particular criminal act. Investigators must demonstrate the purpose of the payments and their connection to the alleged offence.
Drawing from his own experience, Barker‑Vormawor warned that courts should exercise close oversight when authorities seek access to suspects’ devices and other private information. He said the increasing reliance on phones, mobile‑money records and social‑media communications as evidence makes judicial scrutiny of investigative procedures particularly important.
He argued that constitutional privacy protections should not become secondary simply because authorities are investigating allegations involving online activity, and that safeguards governing the period a suspect may remain in police custody must be strictly observed.
In closing, Barker‑Vormawor urged courts to address any alleged violation of a suspect’s rights rather than treating such concerns as incidental to the substantive criminal case, and to apply consistent standards to controversial speech regardless of political affiliation.
