By Anamaal Amadu
Today, I write because we must pay close attention to a troubling pattern in our democracy.
In 1982, under Rawlings, fear wore camouflage. It came in the night, took lives, and left behind a country that understood without explanation that dissent had limits.
Today, the fear is quieter, cleaner, and procedural.
And that is precisely what keeps me up at night.
Because repression has evolved.
A recent MyJoyOnline report on arrests over social media commentary tells a story that should unsettle anyone who values free speech. Over a dozen individuals were allegedly detained not for violence, not for insurrection, but for what they said or typed.
And then came the piece de resistance, the detention of Dennis Miracles Aboagye by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), an incident that deepens concerns that these events may not be isolated but part of a broader pattern.
Aboagye, one of the more vocal and trusted critics of the NDC government who recently declared his intention to run for the position of National Communications Director of the opposition NPP, was detained under circumstances that have raised questions about due process. Reports indicate he was picked up at the airport, held without immediate charges, and that his lawyers faced difficulties accessing him.
This goes beyond a routine arrest. It represents a moment that tests the strength of Ghana’s constitutional protections and commitment to the rule of law.
When citizens begin to fear expressing opinions, when political actors are detained under questionable circumstances, and when access to legal representation appears uncertain, the issue becomes bigger than individual cases. It becomes a question of whether institutions are protecting democracy or becoming instruments of power.
In 1982, control was crude. Today it is curated subtly and hides behind undue process.
But strip away the language, and the instinct is familiar. Neutralize discomfort, manage dissent and send a message.
Because institutions do not act in a vacuum, they are directed, shaped, and in this case, used.
The leadership of the Economic and Organised Crime Office, including Raymond Archer, now finds itself at the centre of a perception problem it cannot ignore.
When arrests disproportionately touch political actors, when due process appears flexible, it begs the question: who is the law truly serving?
Fair or not, the optics are clear. An anti-corruption body increasingly seen not as a shield for justice but as a tool for pressure. Once that perception takes root, legitimacy begins to dismantle.
The difference here is that in 1982, fear was enforced. Today it is anticipated.
People do not need to be silenced publicly if they begin to silence themselves.
That is how democracies fade, not with a bang, but with hesitation.
A paused tweet.
A deleted post.
A conversation never had.
And abuses left unchecked.
Ghana is not where it was in 1982. But it is also not immune to the slow drift toward selective justice and institutional overreach.
When power begins to stretch the law, the responsibility to hold it accountable rests with the institutions and citizens who safeguard democracy.
If that responsibility is abandoned, then the distance between 1982 and today may not be as wide as we like to believe.
The writer, Anamaal Amadu, is youth and political advocate.
About The Author
