In recent times, Ghana’s digital space has become a battleground where criticism of political leaders is increasingly being replaced by personal attacks, insults and unsubstantiated allegations. The rise of such content, particularly on platforms such as TikTok, has sparked a difficult but necessary conversation: are Ghanaians witnessing an expansion of free expression, or a worrying decline in values, respect and common sense?
The trend of insulting public figures, especially the President, is not entirely new. Successive governments and leaders have faced criticism, mockery and political attacks from citizens across the country. However, what appears different today is the growing normalisation of abusive language and the willingness of some individuals to make serious allegations without evidence, hiding behind the protection of free speech.
President John Dramani Mahama, beyond occupying the highest office of the land, is also an elderly person who deserves a level of respect expected in Ghanaian society. While citizens have every right to disagree with his policies, express disappointment or demand accountability, disagreement should not be confused with disrespect. Democracy gives people the freedom to speak, but that freedom comes with responsibility, restraint and an appreciation of the dignity of others.
The recent conviction of TikToker Camilla Alhassan has brought this debate into sharper focus. She was sentenced to one year in prison by the Accra Circuit Court after pleading guilty to offensive conduct and the publication of false news. The sentence followed her publication of videos alleging, without evidence, that President Mahama buried 32 cows as part of rituals to win the 2024 general election.
Following the ruling, some individuals and organisations, including the Media Research Institute (MRI), called on President Mahama to consider granting her a presidential pardon, describing the sentence as excessive.
While such calls may be rooted in concerns about protecting freedom of expression, they also raise important questions about where the line should be drawn between free speech and the spread of false allegations capable of damaging a person’s reputation.
The central issue in this matter is not whether citizens should be allowed to criticise the President. They must. The issue is whether making serious claims without evidence, presenting them as facts and spreading them widely should be protected as legitimate expression. Freedom of speech cannot become a shield for defamation, misinformation or deliberate attempts to damage the image of individuals.
A troubling aspect of this conversation is the timing of public reactions. Some voices calling for mercy only became prominent after the court delivered its judgment. This raises questions about whether enough was done earlier to discourage the spread of such content before it gained attention online. If society remains silent while false and offensive material circulates, it becomes difficult to address the consequences after harm has already been caused.
Unfortunately, the conviction appears not to have completely discouraged the practice. Social media platforms continue to witness videos and posts containing insults, personal attacks and allegations against political leaders without supporting evidence. The fact that some of these comments come from adults raises concerns about the values being passed on to younger generations who consume such content daily.
Ghana has a long-standing reputation for democratic tolerance and political participation. However, democracy is not measured by how freely people can insult others; it is measured by the ability of citizens to engage in meaningful debate while maintaining respect and responsibility. A society that loses civility in public conversations risks weakening the very democratic principles it seeks to protect.
Recommendation
Addressing this challenge requires a collective effort. The state must intensify public education on the meaning and limits of free expression, helping citizens understand that rights come with responsibilities.
Schools and families must also place greater emphasis on values such as respect, integrity and responsible communication to ensure younger generations do not normalise abusive behaviour.
Social media companies also have a role to play by strengthening measures against repeated violations, misinformation and harmful content. Accounts that consistently publish defamatory or abusive material should face appropriate restrictions to prevent digital platforms from becoming spaces where falsehood and disrespect thrive unchecked.
Conclusion
Ghana’s democracy is firmly established, and social media has created unprecedented opportunities for citizens to participate in national conversations, hold leaders accountable and contribute to public discourse. These platforms should be used to strengthen democratic engagement, not to undermine it through insults, falsehoods and personal attacks.
While every Ghanaian has the constitutional right to criticise political leaders, including the President, that right should not be interpreted as a licence to make reckless, defamatory or abusive statements simply to gain attention, attract followers or chase online trends.
Ultimately, this is not only a question of values but also of common sense. Values can be taught, encouraged and strengthened through education, families and society, but no one can be forced to embrace them. Common sense, however, should compel individuals to recognise the difference between constructive criticism and shameless abuse, between exercising a constitutional right and deliberately harming another person’s reputation.
Democracy flourishes when citizens speak freely with responsibility, civility and respect. When insults masquerade as free speech, it is not democracy that is being strengthened it is the quality of public discourse that suffers.
Over all, the debate over presidential insults is not simply about politics or one individual. It is about the kind of society Ghana wants to build.
A democracy without respect, accountability and common decency risks becoming a platform where freedom is abused rather than protected.
