Re-Freedom of Speech, Disinformation and the National Interest

In Ghana, not only has social media become, for some, a tool for vile, emotive and incendiary broadcasts and publications, but we are also seeing the deployment of bogus Think Tanks to provide a veil of respectability to the disinformation that is put out.

Some - repeat, some - civil society groups, simply pull together a couple of individuals whose own thinking tanks are on empty, and put out statements which confirm that they don’t enjoy reading, or they lack understanding when they do, or are simply on a mission to destroy.

It is important to out such groups so that Ghanaians can see them for what they truly are and approach their output with the well-known legal dictum, “Buyer Beware”.One of the most obvious of such agitation propaganda (agitprop) groups is the so-called “Caucus for Democratic Governance - Ghana (CDG-Gh), whose name has been deliberately couched to pass off as the Institute for Democratic Governance (IDEG) or Centre for Democratic Development - Ghana (CDD-Gh), both of which have hallmarks of intelligent world-class discourse, including when their analysts disagree with government policies, irrespective of who is in power.This CDG-Ghana is headed by one “Dr.” E.

In his latest drivel published by Modern Ghana, an online portal, he claims “to draw attention to (sic) plethora of clandestine activities happening on the blind side of governance” (sic), whatever that means.He describes the appearance of the French Ambassador on TV discussions, the demolition of two Embassy buildings and the raising of the LBTQI (sic) as a “synopsis of long-term events yet to unfold”.

On France, he links our bilateral relations which has been a foreign policy goal of all Presidents under the Fourth Republic, as a strategy by France to take over Ghana and to make Ghana a dictatorship like Ghana’s neighbours (his words).

Finally, the media and online portals, such as Modern Ghana which published the article by “Dr.” Hayford must exercise discretion.

They must understand that they are as liable for what they publish as the person who authored the diatribe.