Ghana’s Minister for Communication, Digital Technology and Innovations, Samuel Nartey George, has criticised the country’s large number of broadcast stations, describing the situation as “pure madness” and “media tyranny” rather than genuine media freedom.

Speaking during a keynote address on Monday, George questioned why a country with a population of 35 million would have almost 700 radio stations and 120 television stations. He said the number of outlets was creating serious challenges for the media industry.

“Explain to me why a country like Ghana, with 35 million people, should have almost 700 radio stations and 120 TV stations,” the minister said, adding, “it is pure madness.”

George also raised concerns about the ownership of media organisations by political and religious groups, saying such arrangements violate existing regulations. According to the minister, some organisations have exploited loopholes by obtaining broadcast licences through other entities.

“We have a law that says religious bodies should not own broadcast houses, but we know that they own them because they use pseudo-entities to apply to the National Communications Authority,” he said. The National Communications Authority is the statutory regulator that licenses broadcast stations in Ghana, placing it at the centre of any future licence reviews or enforcement action.

The minister said he was prepared to shut down some stations, a position he said had drawn criticism from senior figures and opposition parties. He recalled that, when the proposal began to take shape, the President was warned that one of his ministers was exceeding his authority.

“If you leave me, I will shut down every political and religiously affiliated media house so that we have a clean slate in this country,” George added.

He suggested that Ghana would be better served by having fewer than 100 active radio stations, arguing that this would support greater sustainability and quality. He also criticised the concentration of outlets in urban areas, what he described as chaotic oversaturation, and opaque ownership structures. The sustainability argument reflects the underlying economics of broadcasting: radio spectrum is a finite shared resource, and where hundreds of outlets compete for a limited pool of advertising spending, individual stations can struggle to remain viable.

The comments have prompted debate over where media freedom ends and regulatory disorder begins. One question is whether shutting down a media organisation would amount to suppressing press freedom, or whether revoking the licences of organisations that obtained them through concealed arrangements would instead represent legitimate enforcement of the law.

There are also concerns that closing politically and religiously affiliated stations could trigger national unrest and widespread criticism. Some have questioned whether a regulatory framework defining the scope of such organisations’ operations could prevent or reduce that backlash. How the dispute develops is therefore likely to turn on process: whether any action is pursued through formal licence review, with the due-process and hearing rights that courts and civil society have emphasised in comparable cases, or through sweeping executive directives.

The debate has also been linked to internet shutdowns. When a government or authority intentionally cuts off internet access, particularly during protests, social unrest or elections, the measure can restrict the press’s ability to operate and prevent citizens from staying informed. Internet blackouts are therefore frequently described as media suppression because the internet has become a primary infrastructure for modern journalism, free expression and the flow of information.

Similar concerns apply to the debate in Ghana. Closing media organisations can affect democracy, public safety and human rights because broadcasting networks connect citizens with updates about events in their country.

Local and international legal frameworks, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, protect freedom of expression and the right to seek, receive and impart information. Critics of forced shutdowns argue that such measures can therefore violate those rights.

The discussion also includes cases in which media organisations are accused of spreading false information or using their platforms for political warfare. As George explained, rapid and politically motivated licensing over the past two decades has contributed to spectrum clutter, frequency congestion and financially unviable media operations.

Partisan or hate-instigating media can cause social harm. However, a threat to shut down every politically and religiously affiliated media house in order to create a “clean slate” could be viewed as an extreme regulatory response.

Ghana is a constitutional democracy governed by the 1992 Constitution, which protects press freedom and media independence under Chapter 12. Sweeping executive shutdowns could therefore raise constitutional and press-freedom concerns.

Even in cases involving misinformation, unfair broadcasts or partisan conduct, the constitutions of many democracies do not give governments an arbitrary power to close radio or television stations.

Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, for example, does not grant the government an absolute or arbitrary right to shut down media organisations. Section 22 recognises the media’s role in holding the government accountable and reporting information to the public, while Section 39 guarantees freedom of expression and the press.

The National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) regulates broadcast media in Nigeria under the NBC Act. Civil society organisations such as the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), human rights lawyers and the courts have repeatedly argued that closing radio and television stations or revoking licences because of administrative or political disagreements can violate constitutional rights to a fair hearing and free expression.

Regulations associated with the Nigeria Data Protection Commission (NDPC) have also been invoked by lawmakers and the government to increase oversight of online platforms and digital creators.

Ghana’s 1992 Constitution prohibits government control, interference, censorship or harassment of media organisations and protects press freedom under Chapter 12. Article 162(1) guarantees the freedom and independence of the mass media, while Article 162(2) states that, subject to the Constitution and laws consistent with it, there shall be no censorship in Ghana.

Article 162(4) further provides that editors and publishers should not be subject to government control or interference, or be penalised or harassed because of their editorial opinions, views or published content.

Critics of government shutdown powers argue that authorities can abuse them by labelling legitimate and verified investigative reports about corruption as false information or fake news. They say this can lead to broad censorship in which the only permitted information is material that praises politicians in power.

Rather than allowing the government to close radio and television stations, the argument goes, an independent broadcasting commission such as Nigeria’s NBC should review complaints and determine appropriate measures. Possible sanctions include warnings, mandated on-air retractions and fines.

Source: https://technext24.com/reviews/ghana-to-shut-down-hundreds-of-radio-and-tv/

Primary source: https://x.com/_GhChronicles/status/2117381219910558205?a=Un58Ug0T33w3Vbjlac4&s=20