During his inaugural speech on January 7, 2017, President Akufo-Addo boldly declared, “I ask you to be citizens, not spectators.” Soon after, he faced backlash for plagiarising the words of former U.S. President George W. Bush.
His team put up a spirited defence amidst claims that he was merely inspired by the former U.S. President’s words.
At the time, the nation was focused on Akufo-Addo’s victory over John Mahama in the 2016 elections. Ghanaians yearned for the change Akufo-Addo promised.
The plagiarism issue seemed trivial and was brushed aside, as many believed it was not worth dwelling on.
However, over the years, it has become clear that Akufo-Addo’s call for active citizenship is hollow.
He merely delivered a script prepared by his speechwriters, offering Ghanaians what they wanted to hear, not what he genuinely believed.
An analysis of his inaugural speech reveals a pattern of broken promises. One of the most striking examples was his vow to take care of the elderly in the “dusk of their lives”.
Instead of fulfilling this promise, his government has forced the elderly to endure financial losses through the domestic debt exchange programme, during an economic downturn.
For the first time in the country’s history, elderly citizens have taken to the streets of Accra, protesting against “haircuts” on their investments — an outcome the President had previously assured Ghanaians would not happen when he said, in a televised address, that “there will be no haircut”.
He broke this promise and regrettably, it is just one example of the many unfulfilled pledges he has made during his presidency.
The heartache of broken promises is felt across the nation, but perhaps, the most damaging legacy of Akufo-Addo’s tenure is the erosion of the protest culture. As a young man, Akufo-Addo himself led protests against socio-economic injustices.
Yet, as president, he has overseen a government that silences voices of dissent, allowing the Attorney-General and police service to remand young people for protesting galamsey, (the illegal, small-scale mining menace that is currently threatening Ghana’s agricultural sector and has led to the heavy pollution of several river basins).
The president’s transformation from a vocal advocate for social justice to a silent observer of oppression is one of the most disheartening aspects of his tenure.
It is a painful betrayal of the trust that well-meaning Ghanaians reposed in him.
The Occupy Julorbi protest caused significant vehicular traffic as demonstrators took to the streets, with one of the protest leaders, Oliver Mawuse Barker-Vormawor Esq., notably shaking a police metal barricade and throwing away a police key.
While these actions were provocative, the question remains: did they constitute violence? To answer this, we can refer to United Nations (UN) General Comment 37, which addresses the right to peaceful assembly.
According to the UN, peaceful assembly must not involve violence. “Violence”, in the context of Article 21, entails the use of physical force by participants that could cause injury, death or serious damage to property.
Importantly, acts like pushing, shoving or disrupting traffic do not meet the threshold of violence.
When Barker-Vormawor shook the barricade, did it actually harm anyone? Was there any immediate danger to a police officer or bystander? The answer is a clear no.
Shaking a metal barricade may have been a symbolic show of defiance, but it did not have the potential to cause injury or damage.
Similarly, when he took the police key and threw it away, it was unruly, but once again, no one was harmed, and no damage occurred.
Even the protestors who blocked the road with stones did not cause physical injury or destruction of property.
These actions, while undoubtedly disorderly and irritating, do not meet the criteria for violence under any reasonable definition.
The UN guidelines make clear that peaceful protests can be disruptive without turning violent, as long as there is no intent or action that could cause physical harm or serious property damage.
None of the actions taken by the protestors — whether shaking barricades, throwing keys or blocking roads — resulted in such outcomes.
What is truly shocking is the response from the authorities. Instead of recognizing the difference between provocation and violence, they have chosen to treat these actions as grave offences.
The arrest and continued detention of these protestors, many of whom are young, raise serious questions about the intent of the current administration.
This does not appear to be about justice; it seems more about sending a chilling message of intimidating the youth and discouraging future protests.
What, then, are the actual crimes of these protestors? They did not destroy property nor did they harm anyone.
The real crime they seem to be accused of is exercising their democratic right to peaceful assembly and difference of opinion.
By holding them in custody, officialdom seems determined to instil fear in young people, discouraging them from speaking out or standing up for what they believe.
This trend is deeply troubling. Are we, as a society, trying to raise a generation of docile, unengaged youth who are too afraid to express themselves? The suppression of peaceful protest is not just an attack on these individuals— it is an affront to the spirit of democracy itself.
When the youth are punished for asserting their rights, it sends a dangerous message: that silence and submission are preferred over active citizenship. This is a path that leads, not to progress, but to repression.
The judiciary should not be complicit in this clear injustice. Are these protestors genuinely a flight risk? It is hard to believe. So why is the court aiding this brute and arbitrary display of power that is meant to show the youth where power really lies?
Instead of upholding justice, the courts seem to reinforcing this dangerous precedent — one where the legal system is used, not to protect rights, but to intimidate those who dare to speak out. Posterity will be the ultimate judge of who was on the right side of history on this matter.
The protestors have complained of starvation while in police custody, but the police were quick to counter, proudly stating that they served them with “Papaye” rice. Well, is that not just the best news ever?
Who knew that under Akufo-Addo and George Akuffo Dampare’s administration, the police are so incredibly well-resourced that they are serving up restaurant-quality meals to detainees?
Forget about the sorry state of the economy and the mass destruction of rivers and forests (with their flora and fauna) because there is Papaye rice for all! Truly, what a time to be alive in Ghana. Akufo-Addo never meant for any Ghanaian to be critical of his administration.