The Minority Leader in Parliament, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has strongly criticised the continued remand of the Bono Regional Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Kwame Baffoe, popularly known as Abronye DC, describing it as a violation of Ghana’s constitutional safeguards.
Addressing a press conference on Sunday, May 17, 2026, Afenyo-Markin argued that aspects of the legal process surrounding Abronye DC’s detention raise serious constitutional concerns, particularly in relation to bail provisions and freedom of expression.
He questioned the application of existing laws on bail, suggesting that certain provisions under Ghana’s legal framework limit judicial discretion in a way that may conflict with constitutional principles.
According to him, the handling of the case reflects broader issues within the justice system. He maintained that while the judiciary is guided by statutory provisions, the Constitution should remain the ultimate reference point in ensuring fairness and protecting individual rights.
Afenyo-Markin further insisted that although the NPP does not support irresponsible public commentary, the appropriate response to alleged reputational harm should be through civil action rather than criminal prosecution.
“The party does not condone irresponsible speech. We never did, and we never will. But public discourse carries responsibility and we believe deeply in that. Where speech damages a person’s reputation, Ghanaian law provides a civil remedy,” he stated.
Abronye DC was remanded for two weeks on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, as part of ongoing investigations into allegations involving misinformation and the publication of offensive statements.
He was initially arrested on Monday, April 13, in connection with claims of offensive conduct, false publication, and statements considered capable of inciting fear and panic. Although he was later granted bail while investigations continued, he was subsequently re-arrested as authorities intensified their probe.
The NPP has since expressed concern over the developments, insisting that the process raises important constitutional questions about due process and the limits of criminal prosecution in cases involving speech.
