Constitutional Rights and Policy Strategy Adviser at Democracy Hub, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, has urged Ghanaian courts to exercise greater vigilance in protecting constitutional rights in cases involving social media speech, saying alleged violations of suspects’ rights should not be overlooked simply because criminal allegations are before the courts.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, September 19, Mr Barker-Vormawor said the case involving senior nursing officer Salomey Awiti Bafoh raised important questions not only about freedom of expression, but also about detention, bail, privacy and the exercise of police powers.

Ms Bafoh, 40, was arrested at her home in Hansua, near Techiman, on September 13 and subsequently appeared before the Adentan Circuit Court. She pleaded not guilty to abetment of crime, specifically the alleged publication and circulation of false news under Sections 20(1) and 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

She was denied bail and remanded for two weeks, with the case adjourned to September 30.

The prosecution alleges that Ms Bafoh acted as a liaison for UK-based TikTok user Barbara Asantewaa Kodua, popularly known as “Ghana Jollof”, and helped recruit others to redistribute videos produced by Kodua. Claims that some of the material contained statements capable of provoking violence remain allegations and have not been established by the court.

While Mr Barker-Vormawor acknowledged that law enforcement could have a legitimate interest in investigating potentially criminal online content, he said the state must demonstrate clearly where the alleged criminality lies.

He questioned whether the authorities had sufficiently identified the particular material that allegedly crossed the line from offensive or displeasing speech into criminal conduct.

He said the issue was particularly important because Ms Bafoh was described as a regular online commentator, meaning that the distinction between her general commentary and the specific material forming the basis of the criminal allegations needed to be clear.

Mr Barker-Vormawor said an audio recording in which an allegation was made that a coup was taking place at Jubilee House could potentially raise legitimate concerns under laws dealing with false publications capable of causing fear and panic.

However, he stressed that making such an allegation should not automatically be treated as participation in treasonous conduct.

Mr Barker-Vormawor said his criticism of the handling of the case should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the content attributed to Ms Bafoh or the “Ghana Jollof” platform.

He said he found some of the insults and commentary circulating online objectionable, but argued that the question before the public was whether the state was responding to such material within the appropriate legal and constitutional framework.

His broader concern, he said, was whether similar standards were being applied consistently to controversial speech irrespective of the political affiliation of the speaker or the target.

He cited previous disputes under earlier administrations, including his own experience, and argued that conduct criticised when one government was in power should not become acceptable simply because political power has changed hands.

Mr Barker-Vormawor also criticised aspects of the police communication surrounding the investigation, particularly information concerning persons being sought.

He argued that where investigators know an individual is resident outside Ghana, public notices should accurately reflect that information.

In his view, inconsistencies in police communication can contribute to public perceptions that law-enforcement action is being driven by political considerations rather than professional investigative processes.

He nevertheless maintained that this did not mean police lacked a legitimate interest in investigating the activities connected to the “Ghana Jollof” account.

The Democracy Hub adviser also questioned the reliance on mobile money transactions as part of the case against Ms Bafoh.

He argued that the existence of financial transactions would not, by itself, establish that money was provided for the commission of a particular criminal act. Investigators, he said, would need to demonstrate the purpose of the payments and their connection to the alleged offence.

The prosecution's case, however, includes allegations concerning financial and other links between individuals associated with the account and the distribution of the disputed content. Those matters will ultimately be tested through the judicial process.

Mr Barker-Vormawor further raised concerns about how law-enforcement agencies obtain and examine digital evidence.

Drawing from his own previous experience with police investigations, he said courts should exercise close oversight when authorities seek access to suspects' devices and other private information.

He argued that the increasing reliance on phones, mobile-money records and social-media communications as evidence makes judicial scrutiny of investigative procedures particularly important.

According to him, constitutional privacy protections should not become secondary simply because authorities are investigating allegations involving online activity.

He also questioned the circumstances surrounding Ms Bafoh's detention and argued that constitutional safeguards governing the period for which a suspect may remain in police custody must be strictly observed.

Mr Barker-Vormawor maintained that courts should address any alleged violation of a suspect's rights rather than treating such concerns as incidental to the substantive criminal case.

He similarly questioned the decision to deny Ms Bafoh bail, while acknowledging that bail is a matter of judicial discretion.

His argument was that judicial discretion must still be exercised within constitutional principles and should remain open to scrutiny where the circumstances warrant it.

Mr Barker-Vormawor's comments come amid a broader national discussion about the state's response to controversial online commentary.

He noted that the Ghana Bar Association had also raised concerns about arrests connected to communications and called for constitutional protections, including the presumption of innocence and reasonable and proportionate bail conditions, to be respected.

For Mr Barker-Vormawor, the central issue is therefore broader than the “Ghana Jollof” case itself: how Ghana balances legitimate law-enforcement interests with freedom of expression, privacy and the rights of persons accused of crimes.

Ms Bafoh remains in custody pending her next court appearance on September 30, while the allegations against her remain unproven.