Legal practitioner Oliver Barker-Vormawor has called for a clear distinction between speech that is unpleasant and speech that amounts to a criminal offence.
He said the state has a legitimate role in investigating communications that may breach the law, but authorities must identify the specific material that crosses the legal threshold.
“Police must distinguish criminal speech from unpleasant content,” Barker-Vormawor shared on Newsfile on JoyNews.
He questioned whether every offensive or displeasing comment should automatically attract criminal enforcement, stressing the need to identify the specific statement or publication forming the basis of a criminal allegation.
“What is the specific material that crosses the line?” he asked.
Barker-Vormawor acknowledged that some statements could raise legitimate concerns under laws dealing with false publications and fear or panic.
He cited an allegation that a coup was taking place at Jubilee House as an example of speech that could warrant investigation, while stressing that such a statement should not automatically be treated as treason.
Barker-Vormawor also made clear that his criticism of the handling of the case should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the content attributed to Salomey Awiti Bafoh or the “Ghana Jollof” platform.
