Ghana’s Parliament is heading toward what could become one of its most contentious legislative battles in recent years, with the Minority caucus vowing fierce resistance to the Cybersecurity Amendment Bill 2025 over provisions critics say could criminalize online expression and transform cybersecurity infrastructure into surveillance machinery.
Kojo Oppong Nkrumah, Member of Parliament for Ofoase Ayirebi, declared Monday that the Minority will employ every legal and parliamentary avenue to block the bill in its current form, describing it as dangerous legislation that threatens free speech under the guise of digital protection. Speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story October 27, the former Information Minister signaled the opposition caucus has united behind what he characterized as existential defense of civil liberties.
The timing of this legislative showdown couldn’t be more sensitive. Ghana signed the UN Convention against Cybercrime on October 25, positioning itself among the first cohort of African states aligning with global cybersecurity standards. Yet domestically, the country faces mounting accusations that its proposed cybersecurity amendments prioritize state control over citizen protection, creating an awkward contradiction between international cooperation and domestic civil liberties concerns.
Here’s what’s driving the controversy. The Cybersecurity Amendment Bill 2025 seeks to update the Cybersecurity Act 2020, expanding enforcement powers for state agencies and addressing what government describes as emerging online threats. The Cyber Security Authority released the draft October 1 with a consultation deadline of October 24, though public debate has intensified rather than subsided since that deadline passed.
Oppong Nkrumah linked the bill to earlier remarks by President John Dramani Mahama about using national security agencies to monitor social media users and search for IP addresses of those posting messages deemed unfavorable to government. That connection transformed what might have been technical cybersecurity legislation into a political flashpoint about whether the administration intends to resurrect tools for controlling dissent that previous governments abandoned.
The proposed amendments would grant the Cybersecurity Authority powers potentially broader than police enforcement capabilities, according to Oppong Nkrumah’s analysis. Under draft provisions, anyone making statements in WhatsApp or social media groups considered false or untoward could face up to ten years imprisonment, a penalty structure critics argue resembles criminal libel laws that Ghana repealed under the Kufuor administration as a democratic milestone.
That historical context matters significantly. Ghana repealed its Criminal and Seditious Libel Laws under former President Kufuor and later passed the Right to Information Act under President Akufo-Addo, both aimed at strengthening freedom of expression. Civil society groups now argue the cybersecurity amendments would effectively reintroduce speech criminalization through the back door, undermining decades of progress toward open democratic discourse.
Digital rights advocates and civil society organizations have raised red flags over multiple provisions beyond just speech restrictions. Section 48 defines cybersecurity practitioners and sets accreditation requirements that critics argue could be interpreted broadly enough to capture ordinary IT support workers and internet cafe operators, subjecting them to mandatory licensing. The bill proposes accredited practitioners pay a thirty percent revenue share to the Cybersecurity Authority, a provision technology professionals warn could stifle Ghana’s digital economy.
The Ministry of Communications and Digitalisation, sponsoring the legislation, has defended the amendments as necessary to strengthen Ghana’s cybersecurity architecture and protect citizens from online fraud, cyberbullying, and digital exploitation. Government maintains the bill isn’t intended to suppress speech but to ensure Ghana keeps pace with global cybersecurity standards while protecting national interests, particularly given that Ghana lost over GH₵19 million to cybercrimes in the first nine months of 2025 alone.
But that defense hasn’t satisfied skeptics who’ve watched similar justifications used internationally to legitimize surveillance infrastructure. The Media Foundation for West Africa, which previously engaged with the Cybersecurity Authority on the original 2020 Act, has historically emphasized that Ghana doesn’t need new laws for combating misinformation but rather proper application and enforcement of existing frameworks without selective prosecution.
Dr. Kabiru Mahama, speaking on Citi FM’s Eyewitness News Monday, confirmed he’s seen and read the circulating document but clarified it hasn’t been formally submitted to Parliament’s Select Committee on Information and Communication. Despite the lack of formal presentation, he said statements and actions of key government officials, including the President and Communications Minister, lend the document significant credibility as reflecting government’s true intentions.
What makes this controversy particularly complex is the legitimate cybersecurity challenges Ghana faces. Beyond the GH₵19 million lost to cybercrimes this year, the country has experienced sophisticated fraud schemes, data breaches affecting financial institutions, and coordinated disinformation campaigns during election periods. Nobody disputes Ghana needs robust cybersecurity infrastructure. The question is whether enhanced security requires sacrificing civil liberties or if the two objectives can coexist through carefully crafted legislation with proper oversight mechanisms.
The bill’s opponents argue global trends demonstrate moving away from criminalizing speech toward civil remedies for harmful expression. Countries that criminalize online expression typically see those laws weaponized against journalists, opposition politicians, and activists rather than genuine cybercriminals who tend to be sophisticated enough to evade enforcement anyway. Oppong Nkrumah emphasized that if Ghana wants to reduce misinformation, it should expand freedoms and make information access easier rather than jailing people for expressing opinions.
The legislation now sits before Parliament’s Communications Committee for detailed scrutiny, with public consultations expected to continue despite the October 24 deadline having passed. Whether the committee produces a revised version addressing civil liberties concerns or advances the bill substantially unchanged will determine if Oppong Nkrumah’s promised fierce resistance materializes into actual parliamentary warfare.
The Minority’s threat to employ every legal avenue suggests potential procedural battles including prolonged committee hearings, amendments designed to strip controversial provisions, and possibly invoking constitutional challenges if the bill advances to the floor. With Parliament’s current configuration and the government’s majority, the Minority’s ability to actually block legislation remains limited, but they can certainly make passage politically costly through sustained public advocacy and procedural delays.
Ghana finds itself at a crossroads between legitimate cybersecurity needs and fundamental freedoms. By signing the UN Convention against Cybercrime, Ghana positioned itself within a global framework for cyber governance, but whether the country can successfully navigate international cooperation while protecting domestic civil liberties depends partly on how seriously government takes concerns raised during consultations and whether sufficient oversight mechanisms get built into final legislation.
The coming weeks will reveal whether this controversy produces meaningful legislative revisions or simply delays inevitable passage of amendments that critics fear could transform Ghana’s Cybersecurity Authority from guardian of cyber hygiene into what Oppong Nkrumah characterized as a dangerous encroachment on free speech. Either way, the battle lines are drawn for what promises to be Parliament’s most watched legislative fight of the current session.
