The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has served notice it will support efforts to appeal the one-year jail sentence handed to TikToker Camilla Alhassan, describing the conviction as a worrying development for freedom of expression in Ghana.
The Accra Circuit Court on Thursday, July 16, 2026, convicted the 43-year-old content creator on a charge of offensive conduct after she pleaded guilty to publishing videos alleging, without evidence, that President John Dramani Mahama buried 32 cows as part of ritual sacrifices to secure victory in the 2024 general elections.
The court, however, struck out a separate charge of electronic abuse after ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to hear that aspect of the case.
In a statement, the NPP argued that the imprisonment of a citizen over expressive conduct raises serious constitutional concerns, citing the protection of freedom of speech under Article 21 of the 1992 Constitution.
The party maintained that if any person, including the President, believes they have been defamed, the appropriate remedy is a civil action rather than criminal prosecution.
The NPP described the sentence as a sign of growing intolerance and accused state institutions, including the Police, Attorney General’s Office and the courts, of using criminal processes to punish expression.
The party also criticised the manner in which Camilla Alhassan was handled at the court premises, describing it as an affront to her dignity.
The development has reignited debate over the limits of free speech and the use of laws governing online expression.
The Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) has raised concerns over what it describes as the increasing use of laws on false news and offensive speech to prosecute social media users.
Meanwhile, government has defended the enforcement of such laws, insisting that the move is not a crackdown on free expression but an effort to address the spread of harmful and misleading content online.
Communications Minister Samuel Nartey George has maintained that while free speech remains a fundamental right, it should not be used to justify the spread of false information.
