The one-year prison sentence handed to TikToker Camilla Alhassan has triggered widespread public debate. Many believe the punishment was too harsh. Others have gone further, accusing the court of acting as an extension of the political establishment.

The criticism is understandable. Social media has become a battleground where supporters of all political parties spread falsehoods, insults, and propaganda, often without consequences.

It is therefore easy to ask why one person should be imprisoned when many others appear to escape punishment.

But that is a different question from whether the court got this particular case wrong. Based on the facts that have been publicly reported, the answer is no.

The accused admitted that she had published false claims that President John Dramani Mahama sacrificed or buried 32 cows as part of rituals to win the 2024 general election.

She then pleaded guilty to the criminal charges before the court, including offensive conduct and publication of false news.

That plea changed everything

In criminal proceedings, a voluntary guilty plea is an admission of the offence. Once the court is satisfied that the plea is made freely and that the accused understands its consequences, the trial effectively ends. The court's remaining task is to determine the appropriate sentence within the limits set by law.
The judge did exactly that.

Indeed, reports indicate that the court even struck out one of the charges - electronic abuse- after concluding it lacked jurisdiction to hear it. That hardly suggests a court determined to convict at all costs. Instead, it suggests a court that carefully considered the law before it.

Whether the sentence was severe is a matter on which reasonable people may disagree. Sentencing is one of the most difficult aspects of judicial work because judges must balance punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and the public interest.

In this case, the judge reportedly considered the growing prevalence of similar offences and the need to discourage others from engaging in them.

People may disagree with that reasoning, but disagreement does not make the decision unlawful.
Nor should this case be reduced to a simple claim that someone was imprisoned for defaming the President. That is not what has been reported.

The conviction arose from criminal charges of offensive conduct and publication of false news, not from a civil action for defamation.

It is also important to remember that courts do not go looking for cases. They determine only the matters brought before them by the prosecution. If similar cases involving other political actors have not been prosecuted, that raises legitimate questions about enforcement and prosecutorial discretion—not necessarily about the conduct of the court.

The judiciary should not become the target of criticism simply because it applies the law in a case properly brought before it.

If Ghanaians believe that offences such as publication of false news should no longer attract criminal sanctions or custodial sentences, the proper place to seek that change is Parliament, which makes the laws, not the courts, which apply them.

The Camilla case may well prompt an important national conversation about misinformation, freedom of expression, and criminal punishment in the digital age. Those are debates worth having.

But they should not begin with the mistaken assumption that the court acted outside the law. From all that has been publicly reported, the court did what courts are expected to do: it applied the law to an accused person who admitted her guilt.

That is not judicial overreach. It is the judicial process at work.

The court has done its duty!