Ghana Jollof: Police must distinguish criminal speech from unpleasant content – Barker-Vormawor

Private legal practitioner Oliver Barker-Vormawor has called for a clear distinction between criminal speech and online content that may simply be offensive, unpleasant or displeasing. He said law enforcement agencies must exercise restraint in dealing with social media users, arguing that not every offensive statement should trigger the use of police powers. His comments follow the arrest and remand of 40-year-old senior nursing officer Salomey Awiti Bafoh over her alleged links to the controversial “Ghana Jollof” TikTok account.

Ms Bafoh was arrested at her home in Hansua, near Techiman, on September 13 and later appeared before the Adentan Circuit Court, where she pleaded not guilty to a charge of abetment of crime, specifically the alleged publication and circulation of false news under Sections 20(1) and 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). She was denied bail and remanded for two weeks, with the case adjourned to September 30. The prosecution alleges that Ms Bafoh acted as a liaison for UK-based TikTok user Barbara Asantewaa Kodua, popularly known as “Ghana Jollof”, and helped recruit others to redistribute videos produced by Kodua.

The prosecution has also alleged that some of the videos contained inflammatory statements capable of provoking violence. These allegations have not been established by the court. Speaking on JoyNews Newsfile on Saturday, Mr Barker-Vormawor said the state must clearly identify the specific online content it considers criminal rather than merely offensive.

“We haven’t yet identified, because this person is a serial communicator online, what are the offending materials that the state finds across the line of being displeasing speech into criminal speech?” he asked. He said there could be legitimate grounds for police intervention where online communication creates fear and panic, citing allegations that Ms Kodua claimed a coup was underway at the Jubilee House. According to Mr Barker-Vormawor, however, making such a claim is not, by itself, evidence that the person making it participated in treasonous activity.

“Alleging that something like that is happening is not itself participating in treasonous activity,” he said. He added that such a claim could potentially fall under laws dealing with the causing of fear and panic, but stressed that this should not automatically be treated as evidence of treason.