In a world where online scams, phishing, and digital espionage threaten economies as much as guns once did, Ghana’s lawmakers have tabled an ambitious new plan: the Cybersecurity (Amendment) Bill, 2025. It’s sweeping in scope – a 120-page overhaul that expands the powers of the Cyber Security Authority (CSA) from regulation and awareness to investigation, prosecution, and even confiscation of digital assets.
But as Parliament prepares to debate the bill, critics and digital rights advocates warn that Ghana may be walking a fine line between security and surveillance, protection and overreach.
From Watchdog to Cyber Police
Under Section 4A of the proposed amendments, the CSA would not only “investigate” but also “prosecute” cybercrime on the authority of the Attorney-General. In theory, that’s a response to the growing sophistication of online criminals – from romance scammers to crypto fraud rings – who often operate beyond the reach of traditional policing.
Yet to many legal analysts, the provision marks a dramatic shift in Ghana’s law enforcement architecture.
“The Authority is now judge, jury, and cyber-police,” says one lawyer who requested anonymity. “We’re concentrating investigative and prosecutorial powers in a regulatory agency that wasn’t built for that.”
The CSA’s top officials, including its Director-General and deputies, would also wield the powers of arrest, search, and seizure, with the same rights and immunities as police officers. That, critics argue, blurs institutional lines of accountability.
The Expanding Net
The Bill doesn’t stop at law enforcement. It extends the Authority’s reach into Artificial Intelligence, blockchain, IoT, and quantum computing, mandating national certification standards for these emerging technologies. On paper, it’s forward-looking a recognition that Ghana’s digital economy can’t remain unregulated while AI bots and crypto markets flourish.
But skeptics see a techno-bureaucratic sprawl. Every new service from cloud storage startups to non-profit cybersecurity groups would require accreditation, certification, and in some cases, pay a slice of their revenue into the Cybersecurity Fund.
The fund itself, heavily amended under Section 31, would now draw from 12% of communications service tax and 9% of corporate tax annually – a fiscal redirection that raises eyebrows in private sector circles.
“This is an economic land grab disguised as cybersecurity reform,” says a fintech CEO. “It taxes innovation to fund a regulator that’s also a prosecutor.”
Privacy vs. Protection
Few sections illustrate the tension more clearly than the new Sections 59D–59I, which authorize the Authority to obtain production orders, search warrants, and data preservation orders. Investigative officers can access computer systems, seize devices, and compel service providers, local or foreign, to surrender user data.
Supporters argue these are necessary tools in the digital age, where evidence is ephemeral and cross-border. Detractors, however, warn of potential abuse.
“The Bill lacks judicial safeguards for privacy,” notes Kofi Adjei (not his real name), a data rights researcher. “The CSA can freeze property, seize data, and apply for warrants ex-parte without notifying the individual. It’s ripe for misuse.”
To its credit, the Bill introduces a Witness and Informant Protection clause – an acknowledgment of the dangers faced by whistleblowers in cyber investigations. Yet, even this provision is criticized for being “opaque” on oversight and protection funding.
Cyberbullying, Cyberstalking – and Speech
Sections 67A and 67B criminalize cyberbullying, harassment, and cyberstalking, imposing prison terms of up to ten years for offenders. The language is broad – covering “offensive, rude, or obscene” communications and “false or misleading information.”
That vagueness, free speech advocates warn, could chill online expression. “If a satirical tweet or an investigative report can be labeled as ‘offensive’ or ‘misleading,’ we’re weaponizing the law against dissent,” says a tech enthusiast.
Ghana’s constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but the Bill’s broad wording mirrors similar global trends – from Nigeria’s Cybercrime Act to Kenya’s Computer Misuse Act, where anti-cyberbullying laws have been used to silence critics.
A Necessary Evil – or a Digital Dragnet?
No one disputes Ghana’s need for stronger cybersecurity. In recent years, online fraud has drained millions from the economy and tarnished the country’s reputation abroad. The CSA, established in 2020, has built commendable public awareness and infrastructure.
The 2025 amendment, however, transforms it from a guardian of cyber hygiene into a quasi-security agency – with sweeping control over how digital life is policed, taxed, and regulated.
Whether this represents visionary foresight or authoritarian creep will depend on one thing: oversight. As Ghana’s Parliament debates the Bill, the challenge will be balancing the imperative to secure cyberspace with the duty to protect civil liberties in an increasingly digital democracy.
In the end, the Cybersecurity Amendment Bill, 2025, asks a fundamental question:
How much control should the state have over the internet and who guards the guardians when that control expands?
Post a Comment