Legal practitioner and activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor has criticised what he describes as the inconsistent application of police powers under successive governments.

He argued that conduct considered wrong under the previous New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration should not become acceptable under the current National Democratic Congress (NDC) government.

Speaking on JoyNews’ Newsfile, on the recent 'Ghana Jollof' case, Mr Barker-Vormawor said his previous experiences under the NPP administration should not be used to justify similar actions now that political power has changed hands.

“And in fact, I've had so many people, and I see this all the time on my social media, want consistently people use my experiences under the NPP as justification for why this is okay. And I've consistently spoken against that use, because I have continuously maintained. And in fact, so many of the people who have turned around and are using these examples maintained at that time that these were wrong.”

He said the standard for assessing the use of state power should remain the same regardless of which political party controls government.

“Now, if these were wrong, then they cannot be right now because government has changed,” he said.

Mr Barker-Vormawor was speaking in the context of the arrest and prosecution of the social media commentator ghana Jollof, whose case has sparked debate over the limits of police powers and freedom of expression.

He rejected suggestions that his criticism of the state’s response to her online commentary amounted to an endorsement of her statements.

According to him, some of the material attributed to the social media commentator was offensive and difficult to listen to, but that did not automatically make it criminal.

“I do not like the content of the speech and the insult that we're seeing being treated. Some of the things, I'm not even consuming that content,” he said.

He said the central question was whether law enforcement agencies were applying the appropriate threshold when determining whether controversial speech should attract criminal sanctions.

“The question is, in terms of how we use law enforcement powers, whether or not we are striking the right balance,” he said.

Mr Barker-Vormawor acknowledged, however, that he believed some of the material attributed to Salomey could justify police interest.

He cited an audio recording in which she allegedly claimed that a coup was taking place at the Jubilee House as an example.

“I have said, for instance, that I believe that the audio claiming that somebody, a coup was happening, meets all the criteria of why the law on publication of false news to cause fear and panic exists,” he said.

He distinguished that allegation from other material in which the suspect allegedly insulted political figures.

“But so many of the videos being branded about where the person is insulting of persons in power, it is horrible to listen to. But they do not meet the threshold,” he said.

Mr Barker-Vormawor also questioned aspects of the police’s handling of the case, particularly a wanted notice issued for the suspect.

He said the notice was difficult to justify if investigators had already established that she was in the United Kingdom.

“Those kinds of content, when we do that, it doesn't show professional police work,” he said.

“It just feeds into the general sense that you are doing work at the service of a regime. Those are things that I find hard to justify and agree with.”

Mr Barker-Vormawor stressed that his position did not mean the police should not investigate alleged offences committed through social media.

“I am not saying that there's not a justified police interest in looking into the conduct and work of persons,” he said.

He said the broader debate should focus on maintaining a consistent standard for the exercise of state power while distinguishing between criminal conduct and speech that is merely offensive or displeasing.

“Having that conversation in itself is not an invitation for reckless conduct in a society,” he said.