[Pictured: A witches camp sourced from The Sanneh Institute]

“Monsieur l’Abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerais ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire”[1]

BACKGROUND OF THE BILL

On Thursday, 23rd July 2020, a 90-year-old woman, Madam Akua Denteh, was beaten to death in broad daylight at Kafaba near Salaga, a well-known slave market in the 18th and 19th centuries.[2]

There was deserving outrage and indignation at the heinous crime committed against the nonagenarian. Using this lightning rod moment, civil society organisations, which coalesced into the Coalition Against Witchcraft Accusation (CAWA)[3] including the Sanneh Institute, intensified their advocacy for action on the condition of alleged witches and the closure of witch camps in Ghana. 

The advocacy found conception into a bill before Parliament under the power of a group of members of Parliament led by the representative for Madina, Lawyer Francis Xavier Sosu. A bill was laid before Parliament aiming to amend the Criminal Offences Act, 1960, Act 29 to effectively criminalise the practice of a witch finder, witch doctor or witch catcher.[4] The bill has passed parliamentary muster awaiting presidential assent.

It must be confessed that this piece has been a hard one to produce as the motivation for the bill is noble and even holy, and ought not to face any objections. However, the moral and ethical quandaries at play are not significant to discourage our opposition to this ill-formed bill which makes for a poor and harmful response to a real problem. The risk of forbearing our objections in hopes of things working out any differently than we fear, is too great to ignore. We bear this in mind and aim in no way to hinder a true and proper legislative response to the abuse of the vulnerable of our human family. We only aim to show how the bill is unacceptable.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD ARTICLE

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD BILL

[Ad]

WHAT DOES THE BILL SAY?

The “Don’t Say ‘Witch’” bill, or properly named the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft) is a bill which through eight (8) sections criminalises anyone professing to practice as a witch or wizard, anyone professing to find or catch witches, anyone who accuses another of witchcraft, anyone present or who participates at a time when someone is labelled a witch, any community leader who directly or otherwise permits any of the prohibited acts to occur in their community, as well as an interpretation section.

The bill while inspired by a zeal to do right by the downtrodden and vulnerable elderly people, especially old women, fails on several counts to deal with the issues properly and thoroughly.

Let us examine it together.

WHO IS A WITCH?

The bill fails to define who or what a witch is. It supplies an imprecise definition of sorts in Section 316A (1)[5]. Section 316A (1) reads, “A person who, by whatever means, whether through the use of black magic, spell, harm or any other, similar means induces fear, inflicts harm or causes threat of harm to another person commits an offence….”[6]

In August 2020, the Sanneh Institute, one of the strongest advocates for anti-witchcraft legislation held a high-profile webinar with the participation of Christian and Islamic scholars as well as legal experts in attendance. They had a conversation on witchcraft, religion and law in Ghana whose read out is available online.[7]

They failed to define what a witch is universally. The interlocutors tended to frame discussions of witchcraft within the prism of Christianity and Islam, and rarely through African traditional religion or any other religion. The Christian slant either argued witchcraft did not exist in the Christian Bible, played semantics with translations of the Bible, or simply declared the superiority of Christian spiritual power to witchcraft. At times, all three contradicting positions were made by one person as the Christian expert in the discussion. The Islamic scholars were more upfront about their position and admitted the existence of witchcraft in Islamic belief. 

Nonetheless, they did not give a concise definition of what a witch is, or what witchcraft means – a failing which is further perpetuated in the “Don’t Say Witch” bill.

[Ad]

THE BILL IS REPRESSIVE

Sections 316A(1) and 316B of the bill[8] are particularly repressive. Section 316A (1)[9] attempts to demonise a belief in a spiritual practice called “black magic” or “spells” without defining what these are and from whose perspective these are being defined. Imagine you are a judge presiding over a criminal matter, with a suspect charged with offending under Section 316A[10]. What is “black magic”? What is a “spell”? Is it what the True Faith Church will determine as black magic, or shall the Ahmadiyya Muslim Mission determine that? Is it really expected that judges will determine what black magic is? Once there are doctrinal and belief differences, one man’s “black magic” is another man’s divine practice. 

The bill declines to define “black magic” and “spells” but at the same time, discredits them by alleging their use in causing harm or inducing fear. How can an unknown and yet to be defined belief be found to have induced fear or caused harm in anyway?

In any case, practicing black magic or dabbling in spells are Article 21[11] rights and cannot be criminalised. Finding witches is by itself a manifestation of belief and opinion that someone is of a certain spiritual nature which cannot be proven, regulated, or even dealt with justly through human laws and rules. If someone is motivated by malice to cause harm or induce fear in a person accused of witchcraft, it is not the opinion of someone being a witch that should be subject to criminal prosecution. No prosecutor is expected to reasonably assert the opinion or belief that someone being a witch constitutes some component of a crime. Of the types of intent mentioned in Section 11 of the Criminal Offences Act, Act 29[12], belief is absent. All through the Criminal Offences Act[13], there is no belief crime whatsoever. There is no analogy or example this bill is seeking to emulate. If it is accepted that a belief that someone is of a certain spiritual character or that their spiritual ability is criminalised, we make the law less logical and indeed unprovable.

Evidence around the world bears out how laws with absurd premises and designs have yielded shocking results. In Finland[14], a politician is facing legal trouble for citing Bible verses on social media which condemn homosexuality in her bid to oppose homosexuality.

In the UK[15], a woman was arrested for silently praying in her head outside an abortion clinic. She was hauled away by the police who accused her of breaching a public order rule which prohibited anybody from protesting including praying near an abortion clinic. 

In the Russian Federation[16], Jehovah’s Witnesses have endured decades of persecution with only brief bursts of liberty. Today, they are banned and subject to widespread repression by the Russian state under laws prohibiting extremism.

Any law which bans witchcraft—its practice, labelling, and belief is as retrogressive as the rules of the Spanish Inquisition.[17] There are a myriad Christian and Islamic branches who hold very divergent and, in some cases, hostile positions on what their faith should be and should be about. Shall we ban Jehovah’s Witnesses because they refuse to take or donate blood even at the expense of their own and others’ lives? Despite the ridicule and withering criticisms, shall we outlaw them? Shall we ban Shiites and Sufis because the majority Sunni population disagree with their beliefs and will not otherwise under a democracy, tolerate them? How different are we from Kim’s North Korea if we begin to ban belief?

Considering all of Section 316A[18] of the bill, one cannot help but feel a bit disappointed when there were acclaimed religious experts who backed this bill without seeing the grave danger this law represents for themselves first and foremost. Are they not aware religious and spiritual practices, rituals and manifestations induce all sorts of emotions including fear? It is assumed, with some liberty, most of the readers of this article are either Christian or Muslim. It is therefore necessary to be reminded to be objective. With all due respect, is it not scary and objectively abnormal for millions of people to hold in veneration and devotion, statues and representations of a man being tortured on a crossed stake? What of exorcisms and other “spirit induced manifestations”?

Can Christians really defend the blood curdling threats of eternal harm and hurt (hell), a vast majority of them believe their God will mete out to non-believers?

Can Muslims do any better in defending and justifying the fear and alarm the horrific chronicles of their Holy Book and the threat of Jahannam, guarantees unbelievers?

These and many others are objectively fear inducing, real threats of harm in the Holy Books which have and still cause some of their more maladjusted adherents to carry out violence deeming it obeyance to their respective Gods. Shall we ban the Bible and the Quran?

Are the Christian and Islamic experts ready to edit their Holy Books and beliefs as the Books contain scary, gruesome, and terrifying records, predictions, instructions and even labels?

Disappointingly, the “Don’t Say Witch” bill misses out on truly solving the issue of the mistreatment of elderly women due to accusations of witchcraft levelled against them. It unduly interferes with the fundamental right of belief and religion guaranteed by Article 21(1) (c) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana[19], prescribes inappropriate punishments and prefers to co-opt the serious business of psychology as a make-do sanction.

[Ad]

THE BILL IS ABSURD

The sponsors of the bill[20] recognised English legislation on witchcraft and attempted a discussion of sorts.

They cited the Fraudulent Medium Act 1951[21] which punishes anyone who fraudulently purports to act as spiritualists, mediums or to exercise powers of telepathy, clairvoyance, or other similar power. In Ghana, this English law will mean bans on most of the prophets and “men of God” in Ghana of all religious stripes. Prophecy is the religious word for clairvoyance. Can one imagine the number of religious figures who fall foul of this rule in Ghana already? 

While the English law seems most disagreeable and excessive to us, the authors of the bill, astonishingly, failed to recognise how the English Fraudulent Medium Act[22], which they cite for inspiration, demonstrates their own unwillingness to properly take on religious frauds and quacks. While the English law is resolute in its attempts to intrude into what the English people should believe and are allowed to manifest as spiritual abilities, the Ghanaian bill attempts a broadside at belief and a misguided strike at “witchcraft”.

In the adjoining paragraphs to the citation of the Fraudulent Medium Act[23] in the memorandum accompanying the bill, the sponsors take a slight at Ghanaians by implying Ghanaian society is not enlightened enough to see clairvoyance and telepathy and other fraudulent practices as ridiculous. They buttress this position by admitting the bill is an attempt to create awareness and serve as a deterrent which should be coupled with public education to eliminate the practice of witchcraft accusations. If this is truly the case, resistance to the bill[24] is a duty as no legislature should and can extinguish a belief or opinion the citizenry hold. Actions in tort are the perfect avenue to moderate and control such manifestations. Criminalising wrongful opinions and belief offends the Article 21[25] rights of freedom of thought, conscience and belief and the right to practice any religion and to manifest same. Criminally punishing people who hold religious beliefs that they are witches or know, find or identify witches violates the constitutional protection from unjust discrimination as provided for in Article 17(2)[26].

In fact, the bill seeks to ban all spiritual labels and not just witchcraft. The bill maintains strategic ambiguity in Section 316A (1)[27] by criminalising any person who by whatever means – black magic, spell or other similar means induces fear…is liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than three years. In this way, the bill effectively criminalizes anyone who in religious stead, labels or calls someone anything that induces fear. Due to the vagueness of Section 316A (1)[28], any person may reasonably claim they are in fear or have been harmed due to someone else’s manifestation of “black magic”, “spell” or other similar means. Traditional African Religion which is viewed by the hegemonic Abrahamic religions as “black magic”, “evil” and so on is going to face great persecution under this bill. Any manifestation of that religion, be it a revelation from the deity or oracle, animal sacrifice or rituals can and will almost certainly be deemed to be “inducing fear through black magic”. The bill is a sad attempt to abolish African Traditional Religion under the patronage of Parliament.  It rends Article 21(1)[29] into unrecognizable pieces and ought to be resisted strenuously.

Amusingly, if the sponsors of the bill[30] insist the bill is simply about witchcraft and nothing else, they seem to suggest they wish to abolish “witchcraft” and not the many other real workarounds and religious frauds which harm many in our society as gravely as, or even worse as, witchcraft accusations do. Their excuse for not fully adopting the English position is not, we daresay, due to any lack of enlightenment or any other reason. It is plausibly because the sponsors themselves tacitly acknowledge that the English position is excessive, repressive, and absurd which the Ghanaian people will not tolerate under any conditions. They instead offer the “Don’t Say ‘Witch’’ bill as a watered down but repressively potent alternative.

The ironic silver bullet in the arsenal against the entire bill is Clause 316B[31] which prohibits anyone from practicing or acting as a witch doctor or finder. It criminalises the spiritual practice of witch finding as well as accusing, indicating, labelling, or declaring another person a witch.  This proposition is most absurd.

In Ghana, so-called doom prophecies or predictions were all the rage a few years ago. The new Inspector General of Police issued a threat of sorts to the prophets who engaged in such predictions. The prophets, who for some reason feared the contestable position on prophecy the police had taken, adopted novel means.[32]

They continued their practice through the heavy use of literary devices. Ghana became Umuofia. The President became the King.  The ruling party oftentimes became an elephant, and the main opposition party became an eagle or an umbrella. All these characterisations are never lost on anyone at all. 

In like manner, all witch doctors will simply shed the title and adopt any one of multiple “spiritually powerful” titles chosen from any of the religions or beliefs. Witch will simply become “demon possessed person”, “first born of Eve”, “the eye of Lucifer”, “Maame Water”, “Karishika”, “Jezebel”, “Princess of the Sea”, and for wizards, “Prince of Persia”, “Son of the Dark”, “Agent of Satan”, “Captain of Satan”, “Opposer of God” and so on. These are not suggestions. These are names and labels given to people of a different “spirit” by Christian clerics typically. If these labels and accusatory names are not going to be openly banned, a ban on labelling someone a witch or wizard is futile. 

While it may be cause célèbre for civil society groups and human rights activists to show the fruits of their work in pushing this bill, unfortunately, the bill is rather poor in effect. In lieu of labelling someone a witch, the clerical allies of the human rights activists who participated in efforts to birth this bill get to keep their ability and right to label people worse things than witch. This is but a truly temporary alliance by all objective analyses. The religious circles will not and cannot tolerate their ability and right to exercise their belief to label and accuse others of sins and evils being curtailed. Perhaps today, they are willing to look the other way because they still have a whole space to manoeuvre but the idea and spirit underpinning accusing and finding others to be allied to evil and Satan is as central to some branches of religion as the belief in God itself. 

To further ground their position for why such a bill is necessary, the authors point to the lack of any prosecutions for female genital mutilation and the practice of cruel widowhood rites as implied evidence that criminalisation stops prohibited activities from happening.

Obviously, that is totally flawed as the lack of prosecution and any convictions do not prove the crimes are not occurring. In any case, laws should not be designed for a fear factor. The population needs to understand and in fact be confident that the laws we live by are meant to be enforced and will be enforced, and not to be symbolic or to be a mental scarecrow.

Tellingly, in November 2023, a news report showed that female genital mutilation is on the rise in Ghana. In one district in the Upper East region of Ghana, as much as 10% of females had been mutilated, some of which occurred at state sponsored health facilities.[33] The lack of prosecution is truly not the lack of crime. In any case, the mutilation and cruelty meted out to widows are not beliefs or opinions. They are actual harmful practices done to people. These are strict liability offences. How can these physical, and tangible harmful wrongs, we can objectively see done to people be painted with the same brush as someone having a belief one does not like? Are we to accept holding “unpopular” or “wrong” beliefs or opinions to be criminal offences in this modern era?

[Ad]

PUBLIC POLICY GONE AWRY

Burrough J. in Richardson v. Mellish observed that public policy “is a very unruly horse, and when once you get astride it you never know where it will carry you.”[34] Public policy has been the basis for which most laws are enacted. The reasoning is that the law and by extension the state must operate with the goal of bringing benefits and protections to the maximum of our number. Public policy therefore is bound to, in some way, not always protect everyone, or in the same way. When it comes to laws and the law-making process, public policy considerations are done by the legislature in reading and discussing the bill. Public policy while not ill-intentioned does sometimes, become an unruly horse bolting down a misguided path.

Admittedly, the public policy consideration behind this bill is simply to stop the pain and suffering that old people accused of witchcraft endure. This motive and intent are agreeable to all. The mistreatment of any person especially the vulnerable such as children, women and the elderly is abhorrent to all and ought to be sanctioned.

Perhaps Justice Sowah had this Benthamite position in mind when he stated in Tuffour v. Attorney General thus, “A written Constitution such as ours is not an ordinary Act of Parliament. It embodies the will of a people. It also mirrors their history. Account, therefore, needs to be taken of it as a landmark in a people’s search for progress. It contains within it their aspirations and their hopes for a better and fuller life”[35].

Unfortunately, this oft repeated quote is, with the greatest of respect, being used to legitimise and mainstream undemocratic and backward ideas. This obiter dictum has, it is respectfully submitted, become toxic and is invoked by oppressive and illiberal anti-democratic forces in our country. This position which is allied to Bentham’s social utilitarianism lend themselves over to arguments that the government should be focused on the happiness of the maximum number in society. But what has such thinking yielded in practice? In Ghana, it has been told that the hopes and aspirations of the First Republic was for a one-party dictatorship. In Ghana, it has been told that the hopes and aspirations of the people in the aftermath of the 1981 coup d’état was for “the blood to flow”. Today, we are being told that the hopes and aspirations of our people is to criminalise and repress consenting adults who choose to have sexual relations in non-traditional ways or choose to identify outside of traditional gender roles. With the “Don’t Say Witch” bill, it is argued that our hopes and aspirations are to ban belief in witchcraft to protect the vulnerable. 

But should public policy and law not be loyal to timeless values such as liberty, freedom, and other democratic ideals? Should these values not override whatever whimsical and even genuine values and aspirations the people have in their quest for a meaningful life?

A people’s search for a fuller life may lead to communism, fascism, totalitarianism, and the like if there are no guardrail principles keeping the zeitgeist in check and on track. A people guided by timeless democratic values and principles are on a prosperous track since a fuller life is to be found exclusively in societies over whom democratic ideals and not whimsical hopes and aspirations rule.

This mini dialectic is important to make as Parliament has taken a wild swerve away from being inspired by timeless, universal principles and is fully barrelling down the road of making laws simply because the people want them. Parliament is being driven by the outrage and activist mob. The outlook and historical context of the people have, oftentimes, become the poisonous element which absent-minded lawmakers overdose on to make retrogressive and oppressive laws. In fact, the premier justification for misrule and totalitarianism by dictators and criminal leaders from Stalin to Bush is to immediately invoke the popular support they claim they had from the people. Illegal acts by leaders are framed within the prism of “this is what the people want” and they often get away with it.

The bill is framed in this language of popular support and preference which serves to intimidate any critique. The memorandum accompanying the bill manufactures consent for the bill by strongly putting across the notion that the bill is a product of the people’s wishes. However, this is an obfuscation. It is accurate that the people do want something done to protect the vulnerable old persons who are facing harm and threats due to their alleged associations with witchcraft. What the people did not ask for is an abolition of belief in witchcraft. Neither did the people ask for any of the curtailment of rights including of the people in whose name the bill is purportedly done.

MR PRESIDENT, PLEASE DO NOT ASSENT TO THE BILL!

The President of the Republic must not assent to the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft) in its current form. 

After deep analysis and objective introspection, it will be found that the way to truly liberate old women and men from harm is not to ban belief in anything or any power. An assent to the bill is all that stands between legislative overreach into the private and sacred right of men to believe as they please and into uncharted spiritual realms. This must be recognized and approached with a very clear eye for what the operation of this law will mean for liberty and freedom.

The bill in its current form, as has been demonstrated in this piece, is not fit for its purpose and is repressive. Any bill for the intended purpose of protecting the vulnerable needs to be done through a thoughtful and thorough balance between protecting the vulnerable of our society without endangering rights without overwhelmingly justifiable grounds. Criminalisation of a belief- no matter how wrongful in anyone’ opinion, is not the way to strengthen the democratic ideals we strive for.

The bill[36] must, first, lose all its attempts to outlaw personal belief and manifestation of anyone as a witch. That belief and manifestation of same is guaranteed and protected by Article 21[37]. Someone identifying as a witch and being maltreated for that belief deserves protection, and not criminalisation of their belief. That would be like being the greatest sponsor and supporter of bigots. The cruel treatment meted out to witches and wizards is to force them to denounce and give up their belief of witchcraft. Any claim that to protect the vulnerable, some rights must be taken away from them or anyone is incorrect.

The bill must also abandon any attempts to criminalise the practice of labelling anybody a witch. While the prohibition is a veiled and clumsy attempt to abolish a significant portion of traditional African religion, it does not benefit anyone when witch doctors have a body of vocabulary to avoid calling anyone a “witch” or label themselves “witch finder” but still carry across the same message and practice witch finding all the same. In operation, the law will be found to be futile and absurd.

If the bill abandons the aforementioned positions, the life force of the bill is effectively dissipated. The bill will immediately become needless and hollow. As it is difficult to correct the bill and at the same time preserve liberty including for the vulnerable among us, the bill must be rejected in whole.

Additionally, the bill must be rejected by the President and referred to the Ghana Psychological Association to determine whether it is truly proper to consign someone who holds a spiritual belief to be of mental malady. Besides the blatant violation of Article 17 of the Constitution[38] which prohibits discrimination on religious grounds that the bill suggests, it is almost certain the Ghana Psychological Association should have ethical qualms about the unacceptable punishment Section 316A prescribes for someone who believes themselves to be a certain spiritual nature—a witch. If this sanction has been suggested together with the Ghana Psychological Association, they ought to publish their scientific and ethical bases.

Instead, the tort of defamation in customary law as set forth by Wankyiwaa v. Wereduwaa[39] should be preferred. The resources and investment to be spent on criminal prosecution and punishment as envisaged by the bill can be diverted towards a legal fund for old, vulnerable people who are being defamed by witchcraft accusations. The civil society organisations can fully dedicate themselves to supporting any legal efforts for restitution for the vulnerable who have been defamed not only through witchcraft accusations, but any other accusations actuated by malice and designed to cause a lowering of reputation and ostracization. Prison sentences and fines to the state as suggested by the bill do not support the vulnerable in any way especially when it has been shown even if the word “witch” becomes taboo, there are a many other words which cause the same harmful effects.

Judges should be encouraged, empowered, and emboldened to award large damages against persons who are not able to prove someone is truly a witch or has any negative spiritual characteristic which is likely to defame. As the fines and financial punishments bite and the vulnerable persons are properly compensated for the damage done to them, accusations will surely die down. The practice of finding witches and labelling people as witches and indeed, the belief in witchcraft itself will die a natural death, avoiding any battles as to curtailment of rights. No belief—right or wrong can be proscribed away but they can be guided through less aggressive and intrusive means into oblivion.

CONCLUSION

In sum, the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft) gives reason for grave concerns regarding its potential impact on human rights, belief systems, and the overall wellbeing of vulnerable individuals, particularly elderly women. While the bill emerges from a commendable desire to address the abuse faced by those accused of witchcraft, its flaws are glaring and unacceptable.

The legislation, inspired by the tragic death of Madam Akua Denteh, aims to criminalise the practice of witch finding and accusing others of witchcraft. However, its shortcomings become apparent in its attempt to ban personal beliefs in witchcraft, criminalise the practice of labelling someone a witch, and prescribe harsh penalties for those who claim to practice witchcraft.

The bill's fundamental flaw lies in its failure to recognise the right to belief and conscience, as guaranteed by Article 21(1)(c) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana[40]. By attempting to outlaw certain spiritual beliefs and practices, the legislation treads on shaky constitutional grounds.

The bill in its zealous overdrive to banish belief and practice of witchcraft seemingly provides grounds for inter-religious conflict and an omnipotent silver bullet in the arsenal of any potential tyrant—be it local prosecutor or president in waging an effective campaign of religious persecution. Such a time bomb must not be created. It further sets up judges and prosecutors for thankless work by neglecting to define what the various elements constituting its own definition of “witchcraft” mean and from whose perspective “black magic”, for instance, should be defined.

Furthermore, the comparison with laws addressing female genital mutilation and cruel widowhood rites is inappropriate, as these practices involve tangible harm to individuals. Witchcraft is a belief and labelling someone a witch is an expression of at worst, an unpalatable and tortious opinion, of a person. 

To navigate these complexities, a more nuanced approach is necessary. The focus should shift towards protecting the vulnerable from harm without infringing upon the fundamental rights of others and the vulnerable themselves. The bill, in its current form, risks unintended consequences and may not effectively address the underlying issues it seeks to remedy.

Instead, it is recommended that the bill be declined presidential assent. The bill must abandon attempts to criminalise personal beliefs and defer for strengthening legal remedies against defamation for those wrongly accused of witchcraft. Empowering judges to award substantial damages in such cases could serve as a real deterrent while respecting the constitutional right to belief.

Ultimately, it is respectfully urged upon the President to carefully consider the bill, considering its potential implications on human rights, religious freedoms, and the delicate balance between protecting the vulnerable and upholding constitutional principles. A more thoughtful and measured approach is essential to address the complex issue of witchcraft accusations in Ghana without compromising fundamental rights and freedoms.

Click here to download article

FOOTNOTES

[1]  “Mr. Abbot, I hate what you write, but I would give my life so that you could continue to write” - Voltaire (Attributed), originated in "The Friends of Voltaire," 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)

[2] Lynching of Akua Denteh: The Case for Criminalizing Witch Name-Calling, Graphic Online, https://www.graphic.com.gh/features/features/lynching-of-akua-denteh-criminalise-witch-name-calling.html. Accessed: October 24, 2023.

[3] Coalition Against Witchcraft Accusation Celebrates Parliament's Historic Passage of Criminal Justice Law [2023] ActionAid Ghana, https://ghana.actionaid.org/news/2023/coalition-against-witchcraft-accusation-celebrates-parliament's-historic-passage-criminal. Accessed: October 24, 2023.

[4] Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft)

[5] Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft)

[6] ibid

[7] The Sanneh Institute Webinar: Conversation on Witchcraft, Religion, and Law in Ghana [2020] TSiNET, https://tsinet.org/news/the-sanneh-institute-webinar-conversation-on-witchcraft-religion-and-law-in-ghana/ Accessed: October 24, 2023

[8] Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft)

[9] ibid

[10] ibid

[11] Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992

[12] Criminal Offences Act, Act 29, 1960

[13] ibid

[14] ADF International, "Trial about Censorship of Finnish Politicians' Bible Tweet," https://adfinternational.org/trial-about-censorship-of-finnish-politicians-bible-tweet/ (Accessed: November 8, 2023).

[15] "UK woman arrested for praying across from abortion clinic," New York Post, December 22, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/22/uk-woman-arrested-for-praying-across-from-abortion-clinic/ (Accessed: November 8, 2023).

[16] "Russia: Court Bans Jehovah's Witnesses," Human Rights Watch, April 20, 2017, https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/20/russia-court-bans-jehovahs-witnesses (Accessed: November 8, 2023).

[17] The Spanish Inquisition was a series of Catholic Church-led investigations and trials in the late 15th to 19th centuries, aimed at identifying and punishing heresy, resulting in widespread persecution, and forced conversions.

[18] Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft)

[19] Article 21(1) (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992.

[20] Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft)

[21] Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 (14 & 15 Geo. 6. c. 33)

[23] Fraudulent Mediums Act 1951 (14 & 15 Geo. 6. c. 33)

[24] Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft)

[25] Article 21 (1)(b), Article 21 (1) (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992

[26] Article 17 (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992

[27] Section 316a (1) of the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft)

[28] ibid

[29] Article 21(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992

[30] Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft)

[31] Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft)

[32] Nigel Gaisie and His New Year Prophecies: From Republic of Umuofia to Republic of Yɛmpɛ Nokor," Graphic Online, https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/politics/nigel-gaisie-and-his-new-year-prophecies-from-republic-of-umuofia-to-republic-of-y-mp-nokor.html (Accessed: November 8, 2023).

[33] "Some health facilities in Ghana engaging in female circumcision - Research," GhanaWeb,  https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Some-health-facilities-in-Ghana-engaging-in-female-circumcision-Research-1879145 (Accessed: November 8, 2023).

[34] Richardson v. Mellish (1824), 2 Bing 229 at 252, 130 ER 294 (CP)

[35] Tuffour v. Attorney-General (1980) JELR 67038 (SC)

[36] Criminal Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2022 (Witchcraft)

[37] Article 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992

[38] Article 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992

[39] Wankyiwaa v. Wereduwaa and Another [1963] 1 GLR 332

[40] Article 21(1) (c) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992.