Ghana Jollof case: Prof. Asare raises legal questions over prosecution of Salomey Baffoe

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

In a Facebook post on Thursday, September 17, Prof Asare said his concerns were based solely on the amended charge sheet and police brief facts available to him.

He stressed that he had not watched the videos at the centre of the case and was therefore assessing only what had been presented in the court documents.

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

She has been charged with abetment of crime, namely the publication of false news, contrary to sections 20(1) and 208 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

The prosecution alleges that on or before September 13, 2026, Baffoe aided or abetted Barbara Asantewaa Kodua to publish and circulate false news on TikTok by acting as her liaison.

Police further allege that Kodua produced videos containing “offensive and inciting statements” capable of provoking violence, including alleged threats to overthrow the government and burn Ghana.

According to the police brief, Baffoe allegedly worked with Kodua, recruited people to redistribute the videos, received money from her and shared portions of the funds with others involved in circulating the content.

Prof Asare, however, questioned whether the facts outlined by the prosecution sufficiently establish the particular offence for which Baffoe has been charged.

“Offensive, inciting, threatening and false do not mean the same thing in law,” he wrote.

He argued that an alleged threat to overthrow a government or burn a country does not, by itself, establish the publication of a false statement, rumour or report under Section 208.

“A threat to do something in the future is not, without more, a false statement, rumour or report,” he said.

The law professor also turned his attention to the prosecution’s allegation that Baffoe acted as a “liaison” for Kodua.

He said the State would have to demonstrate that Baffoe intentionally assisted, encouraged or facilitated the commission of the specific offence she is accused of abetting.

Among the questions he raised were whether the prosecution had identified the exact statement, rumour or report said to be false, explained why it was false and shown what Baffoe knew or had reason to believe 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 identified false news.

“‘Serving as liaison’ could amount to abetment if it involved purposeful assistance in publishing identified false news,” Prof Asare said.

“But ‘liaison’ merely describes a relationship unless the prosecution identifies the acts performed and their criminal purpose.”

While acknowledging that the prosecution is not required to put all its evidence in a charge sheet, he said an accused person must still receive sufficient information about the allegation they are expected to answer.

“The investigation may eventually supply these missing particulars. The documents presently available do not,” he said.

Prof Asare further argued that the alleged movement of money could become relevant if it demonstrates coordination, but stressed that coordination alone does not constitute a criminal offence.

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

The law professor also raised concerns about Baffoe’s continued detention after she pleaded not guilty.

She was remanded for two weeks, with national security concerns and ongoing investigations cited in connection with the case.

Prof Asare said he had not seen the court’s written ruling setting out the full reasons for the remand and was therefore commenting only on reasons that had been publicly reported.

He noted that while the law permits a court to deny bail where specific risks exist, such as the possibility of absconding, interfering with witnesses or evidence, obstructing investigations or committing another offence, those risks must be demonstrated.

“‘National security’ is not a self-executing incantation that automatically displaces personal liberty,” he wrote.

“Nor does ‘investigations are ongoing’ by itself justify imprisonment. Almost every police investigation would satisfy that formula.”

According to Prof Asare, the court would have to establish the specific risk that Baffoe poses if released and determine whether appropriate bail conditions could adequately address such risks.

He noted that the police describe Baffoe as a nurse living in Techiman, where she was arrested, but said the brief facts available to him did not indicate any previous attempt by her to flee, destroy evidence or threaten witnesses.

“The fact that the police are looking for other participants may be relevant if there is evidence that Awiti might alert, conceal or improperly influence them,” he said. “But that risk must be demonstrated rather than presumed.”

Prof Asare also questioned the territorial basis for prosecuting Baffoe before the Adenta Circuit Court.

The amended charge states that the alleged offence occurred “in Accra and within the jurisdiction of this court”.

However, he pointed out that the police brief reportedly identifies Techiman as Baffoe’s place of residence and the location of her arrest, while Kodua is said to be based in the United Kingdom.

He said the documents he had reviewed did not show any act allegedly carried out by Baffoe in Accra or Adenta, nor any relevant consequence occurring within the court’s jurisdiction.

“Nationwide accessibility of a TikTok video does not necessarily make every court in Ghana a proper venue,” he said.

He added that simply bringing Baffoe from Techiman to Adenta would not, on its own, establish territorial jurisdiction.

According to Prof Asare, Adenta could have jurisdiction if the prosecution can show that Baffoe committed an act constituting the alleged abetment, recruited someone, distributed funds, facilitated publication or caused a legally relevant consequence within the court’s jurisdiction.

“But none of those connections appears in the brief facts,” he said.

He therefore asked: “What act constituting the alleged abetment occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Adenta Circuit Court, or what legally relevant consequence ensued there?”

Prof Asare concluded by stressing that his observations should not be construed as a defence of any alleged threats, incitement or false publications.

Rather, he said the State must establish the alleged false statement, demonstrate what made it false, show Baffoe’s purposeful connection to its publication, justify any restriction of her liberty and establish the factual basis for prosecuting the case in Adenta.

“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.

Also read:

• Ghana Jollof TikTok: ‘Nurse was unlawfully detained before arraignment’ – Lawyer

• Hawa Koomson calls for bail for detained nurse Salomey Baffoe