The Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill, 2025 — Why it Deserves Front-Burner Media Attention
By: Evans Osei-Bonsu – Journalist, Pure FM.
Since President Mahama first hinted at introducing laws to address what he termed “hate speech” and “cyberbullying” during his first Meet the Press engagement at the Jubilee House on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, it has become imperative for Journalists to thoroughly interrogate such policy proposals.
As members of the Fourth Estate, our duty is to help shape and perfect governance systems, not merely support government initiatives, while safeguarding the democratic principles that have sustained Ghana’s 33 years of uninterrupted constitutional rule.
After a cursory reading of the new Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill, 2025, one may raise that several provisions poses critical concerns that deserve open and robust media discussion.
These are but a few examples:
1. Section 4(A) grants the Cybersecurity Authority, led by the Sector Minister, whoever that may be (in the future),… but , in this instance, Hon. Sam George and his officers, broad powers to issue certifications and make determinations over activities in the cyberspace. In practice, this could stifle innovation and potentially introduce elements of content censorship.
2. Section 8 appears to confer policing powers on the Authority’s officers allowing them to arrest and prosecute offenders without clear subordination to the Ghana Police Service or the Inspector-General of Police. This may blur institutional lines and perhaps, undermine established law enforcement hierarchies.
3. Section 30 empowers the Authority to impose fines and sanctions, meaning that the more arrests and prosecutions it conducts, the more revenue it generates. This creates a dangerous incentive structure that could encourage arbitrary arrests and enforcement actions driven by financial motivation rather than justice.
4. Section 37 authorizes the Authority to unilaterally declare certain online spaces or networks as critical infrastructure. In simple terms, this could mean media organizations such as Pure FM where I ply my trade for example, could one day be compelled to grant the Authority unrestricted access to their cyber systems without a court order if in the own subjective conscience and words of the authority, it deem it fit to declare it to be a ‘critical infrastructure’. – Flowing from this example, such a provision could pose serious risks to privacy, press freedom, and the independence of media operations largely.
5. Even more concerning is Section 67(A)(1) and (8), which introduces offences relating to “cyberbullying” and “false information,” punishable by three to five years’ imprisonment. The bill, however, fails to define “false information” with clarity, leaving interpretation solely to the enforcement authority. This opens the door for subjective application- where legitimate criticism of government or the exposure of unflattering truths could be classified as falsehoods and attract criminal sanction.
6. Further, Section 67(A)(11) defines insult as a form of cyberbullying amongst others. This contradicts the long held principle laid by the Court of Appeal in the case of Debrah v. The Republic [1974] 2 GLR 46 (CA), which established that mere insult does not constitute a criminal offence.
This case has since been cited to affirm the idea that criminal law should not be used to punish mere verbal insult, a principle consistent with Ghana’s constitutional guarantees of free speech and expression under Article 21(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.
7. Lastly, Section 92 grants the state sweeping control over the regulation of emerging technologies. Under the pretext of national security, government could unilaterally restrict or shut down technological innovations, thereby stifling creativity and private-sector advancement.
THE CONTRADICTIONS:
The offences listed under Section 67(A) empower the Government, through the Agency, to unilaterally hold individuals believed to be in breach of these provisions liable. Upon summary conviction, such persons may face a fine of not less than 2,500 penalty units and not more than 5,000 penalty units, or a term of imprisonment of between one and three years, or both.
Given that most individuals who operate in cyberspace do so from the comfort of their ‘DOMESTIC’ environments (homes), it may be inferred that arrests, searches, or enforcement actions would likely occur within these domestic settings — as is seen in some general everyday arrests.
However, Section 59J (4) defines “PREMISES” where one can be held liable for the various offences and have himself or his establishment searched in compliances with ‘data collection order’, ‘production order’, ‘warrant to access’, ‘warrant to search and seize computer data or computer systems’ amongst others, to exclude “DOMESTIC
PREMISES.”
In effect, this creates a legal inconsistency: while the offences under Section 67(A) are punishable, the exclusion of domestic premises from the scope of lawful search and seizure implies that individuals committing such offences within their homes could, in practice, enjoy a degree of immunity from enforcement or prosecution.
More concerning again is that no where in the Bill is ‘Hate Speech’ defined or mentioned to help grasp the basis and understanding of the President’s objective as he hinted to the media, if indeed this Bill passes as the regulation the President referred to when he engaged Journalists.
Having stated the above, it is imperative to note that while the Bill rightly seeks to protect children’s rights and strengthen national security, objectives that are commendable, its broader implications for press freedom, privacy, and innovation cannot be ignored. Certain provisions risk reintroducing the dark spectre of censorship and state control over expression.
As Journalists and Media Practitioners, our role is not to oppose the bill wholesale but to ensure that its final form upholds the core tenets of our democracy. Let us read, analyze, and engage, so that we can shine light on the bill’s darkest corners.
The Bill will likely pass, but through informed public scrutiny, we can help perfect it – ensuring that the fight for cybersecurity does not come at the cost of free speech.
My two cents.
DISCLAIMER:
I am not a Cybersecurity expert, nor do I claim any comprehensive academic authority on the fundamentals of cybersecurity concepts such as “blockchain”, “quantum computing”, or “cloud computing” etc. Neither do I seek to present myself as one. Experts like Barnabas Nii Laryea and Selorm Branttie possess a far deeper understanding of the field and can better explain the technical operations of cyberspace.
My argument, however, is rooted solely in the legal interpretation of certain provisions within the Bill examined against the backdrop of the 1992 Constitution and established legal principles within the scope of my limited legal knowledge and understanding.
Evans Osei-Bonsu
Media Practitioner
Pure FM.
