Legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has warned that Ghana’s democracy faces a growing threat as authorities increasingly treat political satire, harsh commentary, and criticism of leaders as criminal conduct, a trend he says is empowering security agencies to act against citizens engaged in legitimate political expression.
Speaking on TV3, Kpebu argued that provocative political speech, including satirical songs, campus chants, and sharp public commentary about presidents, has historically been part of Ghana’s democratic culture and was rarely treated as grounds for arrest in previous decades. He said the current climate represented a troubling departure from that tradition.
“If we don’t stop this, you will get emboldened security agents who abuse citizens,” he warned, adding that security agencies become especially dangerous when governments appear to endorse aggressive responses to dissent rather than discouraging them.
Kpebu raised specific legal concerns about Section 96(5) of the Criminal Procedure law, which allows a judge to deny bail where a person is alleged to have committed a new offence while already on bail for a separate matter. He acknowledged the provision had a technical legal basis but described it as vulnerable to abuse and capable of keeping accused persons detained for periods that could not be justified on the merits of their cases.
The lawyer also accused Ghana’s political class of hypocrisy, arguing that leaders from both major parties had defended controversial political speech vigorously while in opposition, only to criminalise similar conduct once they assumed power. He said the selective outrage now surrounding political commentary exposed an inconsistency that damaged the credibility of those calling for accountability over offensive speech.
He recalled how politically charged songs mocking former presidents were publicly sung on university campuses and at demonstrations in past years without triggering arrests or police invitations, contrasting that era with the present tendency to treat any critical comment about a sitting president as a matter for law enforcement. “There is space for political satire,” he said. “Today, the least thing you say about a president becomes a police issue.”
Kpebu maintained that a clear distinction existed between political satire, a legitimate feature of democratic expression, and genuine incitement or hate speech, which could rightly attract legal scrutiny. Collapsing that distinction, he warned, would shrink democratic space, silence critics, and normalise a culture of intimidation that would ultimately erode public trust in both the justice system and the institutions of governance.
