Prof Asare raises legal questions over case against nurse linked to ‘Ghana Jollof’ TikTok account

Legal practitioner Prof Kwaku Asare has questioned aspects of the prosecution’s case against senior nursing officer SalomeyAwiti Baffoe, who has been remanded for two weeks over her alleged connection to the anonymous “Ghana Jollof” TikTok account.

Prof Asare said the amended charge sheet and police brief facts available to him did not clearly demonstrate how Baffoe allegedly assisted in committing the particular offence for which she has been charged.

In a Facebook post on Thursday, September 17, he stressed that his comments were based solely on the court documents he had examined and that he had not viewed the videos involved in the case.

Baffoe, 40, was arrested at her residence in Hansua in the Techiman Municipality of the Bono East Region on September 13 before being brought before the Adenta Circuit Court.

She faces a charge of abetment of crime, specifically the publication of false news, under sections 20(1) and 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

According to the charge sheet, Baffoe allegedly aided Barbara Asantewaa Kodua in publishing and distributing false information on TikTok by acting as her liaison.

The police brief further alleges that Kodua created videos containing what investigators described as offensive and inciting statements that could provoke violence. Among the allegations is that the videos contained threats to overthrow the government and burn Ghana.

Investigators also claim Baffoe worked with Kodua, recruited individuals to circulate the videos, received money from Kodua and distributed some of the funds to people involved in spreading the content.

However, Prof Asare said the description of the alleged videos raised questions about whether the conduct outlined by the police actually satisfied the legal requirements of the offence charged.

He pointed out that terms such as “offensive”, “inciting”, “threatening” and “false” have different legal meanings.

According to him, an alleged threat to overthrow a government or burn a country does not automatically amount to the publication of false news under Section 208 of the Criminal Offences Act.

He argued that a statement threatening future action is not, by itself, a false statement, rumour or report.

Questions over alleged abetment

Prof Asare said the prosecution would need to demonstrate that Baffoe deliberately assisted, encouraged or facilitated the commission of the specific offence she is accused of aiding.

He questioned whether the court documents identify the exact statement, rumour or report alleged to be false, explain why it was false and establish what Baffoe knew or ought to have known about its alleged falsity.

He also questioned what Baffoe actually did in her alleged capacity as a “liaison” and how the money she allegedly received and distributed was connected to the publication of the specific false news.

Prof Asare said acting as a liaison could potentially amount to abetment if it involved deliberate assistance in publishing identified false information.

However, he argued that simply describing someone as a liaison does not establish criminal liability unless the prosecution specifies the actions undertaken and their alleged criminal purpose.

He added that the alleged movement of money could potentially provide evidence of coordination, but coordination alone does not constitute a criminal offence.

“The money must be connected to the purposeful facilitation of the specific offence charged,” he said.

While acknowledging that prosecutors are not required to include all their evidence in a charge sheet, Prof Asare said an accused person must receive sufficient information about the allegation they are expected to answer.

He said the ongoing investigation could eventually provide the missing details, but maintained that those details were not contained in the documents currently available to him.

Prof Asare questions two-week remand

Prof Asare also raised concerns about the decision to keep Baffoe in custody for two weeks.

Baffoe reportedly pleaded not guilty and was remanded, with national security concerns and the continuation of investigations cited in relation to the case.

Prof Asare noted that he had not seen a written ruling explaining the court’s complete reasoning and was therefore relying on reasons publicly reported.

He said the law permits the denial of bail where there are identifiable risks, including the possibility of an accused person fleeing, interfering with witnesses or evidence, obstructing investigations or committing another offence.

However, he questioned whether any of these risks had been specifically demonstrated in Baffoe’s case.

He argued that citing “national security” alone should not automatically justify depriving an individual of their liberty, just as the fact that investigations are ongoing should not, on its own, be sufficient grounds for continued detention.

Prof Asare said the court should identify the specific risk that Baffoe would pose if released and determine whether such risks could instead be managed through appropriate bail conditions.

He noted that the police describe Baffoe as a nurse living in Techiman, where she was arrested, but said the brief facts before him did not indicate that she had previously failed to appear before a court, attempted to flee, destroyed evidence or threatened witnesses.

He added that the search for other alleged participants could be relevant if there was evidence that Baffoe might alert, conceal or improperly influence them, but such a risk would have to be established rather than assumed.

Prof Asare questions Adenta Circuit Court’s jurisdiction

The law professor also questioned whether the Adenta Circuit Court has the proper territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.

The amended charge states that Baffoe allegedly committed the offence “in Accra and within the jurisdiction of this court”.

However, Prof Asare noted that the police brief reportedly identifies Techiman as Baffoe’s place of residence and the location of her arrest, while Kodua is said to live in the United Kingdom.

He said the documents he reviewed did not indicate that Baffoe performed any alleged act of abetment in Accra or Adenta, nor did they identify a legally relevant consequence occurring within that jurisdiction.

According to him, the fact that a TikTok video can be accessed nationwide does not automatically mean that every court in Ghana has territorial jurisdiction over an alleged offence connected to the video.

He further argued that transporting Baffoe from Techiman to Adenta would not, by itself, establish the court’s territorial jurisdiction.

Prof Asare said Adenta could have jurisdiction if prosecutors could show that Baffoe carried out an act amounting to abetment, recruited another participant, transferred funds, facilitated publication or caused a relevant consequence within the court’s jurisdiction.

However, he said no such connection was apparent in the police brief available to him.

He therefore questioned what specific act constituting the alleged abetment occurred within the jurisdiction of the AdentaCircuit Court, or what legally relevant consequence took place there.

‘Serious case’ must still comply with due process

Prof Asare stressed that his observations should not be interpreted as defending alleged threats, incitement or the publication of false information.

Rather, he said the prosecution must identify the specific statement alleged to be false, demonstrate why it was false, establish Baffoe’s deliberate connection to its publication, justify any restriction of her liberty and demonstrate the legal basis for prosecuting her before the Adenta Circuit Court.

He maintained that the seriousness of an allegation does not remove the State’s obligation to comply with criminal law and due process.

“The more serious the State says a case is, the more, not less, it must observe the disciplines of criminal law and due process,” he said.