Azar 'schools' Ghana Police over charges filed against ‘Prophet’ Ebo Noah

Legal scholar and social commentator Professor Stephen Kwaku Asare, popularly known as Kwaku Azar, has criticised the Ghana Police Service over the prosecution of Ghana’s self-acclaimed modern-day Noah, Evans Eshun, popularly known as Ebo Noah.

In an elaborate post shared on Facebook on January 2, 2026, Kwaku Azar pointed out that the charges the police prosecutors have levelled against Ebo Noah, who was arrested for claiming that the world would be destroyed by a flood on December 25, 2025, are unconstitutional.

He explained that the charges against the accused person are under Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775), but these laws do not criminalise remarks made by people.

“What, then, does Section 76 actually criminalise? The law provides: ‘A person who, by means of an electronic communications service, knowingly sends a communication which is false or misleading and likely to prejudice the efficiency of a life-saving service or to endanger the safety of any person, ship, aircraft, vessel or vehicle commits an offence.’

“Section 76 does not create a general offence of false speech. Parliament deliberately limited criminal liability to false electronic communications that pose a public-safety risk, specifically those that interfere with life-saving services or endanger physical safety,” he wrote.

He added, “The provision targets emergency hoaxes and communications that divert or disrupt rescue systems. That narrow focus is missing from the charge as pleaded.”

Doomsday 'scammer' Ebo Noah arrested

The legal luminary also pointed out that the police even failed to prove that the action of Ebo Noah really meets the threshold of Section 76 of Act 775.

“The charge sheet does not allege that any life-saving service was mobilised, misled, or disrupted. It does not claim that emergency responders were diverted, that evacuation efforts were triggered, or that anyone’s physical safety was endangered. No victim is identified. No public complaint is cited. No concrete harm is described.

“Instead, the charge relies on conclusory language, asserting an ‘intent to cause fear and panic’ and a likelihood of ‘fear and alarm’ without pleading facts to support those conclusions.

In law, however, intent is inferred from conduct, not labels. The charge alleges no calls for evacuation, no instructions to panic, no solicitation of money, no crowd mobilisation, and no disruption of public services,” he said.

Read his full write-up below:

GOGO Demurs: Why the Noah Charge Misses the Law

The charge sheet against Evans Eshun, popularly known as “Ebo Noah,” is clear.

The State alleges that he published false statements on TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook predicting that the world would be destroyed by a flood on December 25 and claiming that he was building an ark.

According to the charge, these statements were made with the intent to cause fear and panic and were likely to alarm the public. On that basis, he has been charged under Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775).

Let me be clear at the outset: GOGO does not endorse these claims, these actions, or such prophecies. False predictions of catastrophe are irresponsible and deserve firm public rejection.

But disapproval is not a substitute for law, and criminal prosecution must still meet the threshold Parliament set.

What, then, does Section 76 actually criminalize?

The law provides:

“A person who by means of electronic communications service, knowingly sends a communication which is false or misleading and likely to prejudice the efficiency of life-saving service or to endanger the safety of any person, ship, aircraft, vessel or vehicle commits an offence.”

Section 76 does not create a general offence of false speech. Parliament deliberately limited criminal liability to false electronic communications that pose a public-safety risk, specifically, those that interfere with life-saving services or endanger physical safety.

The provision targets emergency hoaxes and communications that divert or disrupt rescue systems.

That narrow focus is missing from the charge as pleaded.

The charge sheet does not allege that any life-saving service was mobilised, misled, or disrupted. It does not claim that emergency responders were diverted, that evacuation efforts were triggered, or that anyone’s physical safety was endangered. No victim is identified. No public complaint is cited. No concrete harm is described.

Instead, the charge relies on conclusory language, asserting an “intent to cause fear and panic” and a likelihood of “fear and alarm” without pleading facts to support those conclusions.

In law, however, intent is inferred from conduct, not labels. The charge alleges no calls for evacuation, no instructions to panic, no solicitation of money, no crowd mobilisation, and no disruption of public services.

Simply predicting catastrophe, even falsely or irresponsibly, does not automatically establish criminal intent.

The claim that the speech was “likely” to cause fear is equally speculative. The charge does not allege audience size, public reaction, panic consequences, or any real-world impact. Criminal liability, especially for speech, cannot rest on conjecture.

There is also a deeper constitutional concern. Claims about an impending apocalypse and an ark fall within the realm of prophetic, religious, or fantastical expression.

Unless such speech is coupled with fraud, coercion, or real-world disruption, criminal prosecution risks turning the State into an arbiter of belief. That is not what Section 76 authorises, and it is not what the Constitution permits.

The issue here is not whether the speech was false, strange, or irresponsible. It is whether the law cited actually fits the conduct alleged.

On the face of the charge sheet, it does not. Section 76 was enacted to protect emergency systems and public safety, not to punish absurdity or police belief.

Citing a law is not the same as satisfying it. If Section 76 can be stretched to cover this case, then false ideas become police matters rather than social ones.

And once that line is crossed, freedom of expression depends not on constitutional principle, but on official tolerance.

PS: Yɛde post no bɛto hɔ. Yɛnyɛ comprehension consultants.

Da Yie!

BAI

Meanwhile, watch as Acting Defence Minister Ato Forson inaugurates 9-Member Ministerial Advisory Board