A Ghanaian citizen has filed a constitutional challenge at the Supreme Court seeking to strike down provisions of two laws on false information, arguing they violate free speech protections and have been used to unlawfully criminalise expression.

In a writ invoking the court’s original jurisdiction, plaintiff Austin Kwabena Brako-Powers is asking the court to declare sections of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) and the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775) unconstitutional.

The suit targets Section 208 of Act 29, which criminalises the publication of statements, rumours or reports likely to cause fear and alarm or disturb public peace, and Section 76 of Act 775, which relates to the transmission of “false or misleading” electronic communications.

The plaintiff argues that the provisions are vague and overly broad, and unlawfully shift the burden of proof onto accused persons to demonstrate they took reasonable steps to verify information before publication.

He contends this violates constitutional guarantees of presumption of innocence under Article 19(2)(c), as well as freedoms of speech, expression and the press under Articles 21 and 162 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.

The filing also challenges the constitutionality of provisions that allow individuals to be prosecuted for false or misleading information without requiring proof of intent or recklessness, arguing this creates a “chilling effect” on journalists, media practitioners and members of the public.

It further asks the court to interpret the laws narrowly, limiting criminal liability to knowingly false communications made with intent to endanger life or disrupt essential services.

The plaintiff is also seeking declarations that ongoing or future prosecutions under the contested sections would be unconstitutional and inconsistent with international human rights obligations, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

He is additionally requesting that the Supreme Court strike down the challenged provisions in their entirety or in part, and grant any further relief it deems appropriate.

The Attorney-General has been named as defendant in the case.