Ebo Noah Arrest: Kwaku Azar ‘schools’ Ghana Police

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

In a detailed Facebook post shared on January 2, 2026, Kwaku Azar argued that the charges brought against Ebo Noah, who was arrested for predicting that the world would be destroyed by a flood on December 25, 2025, are unconstitutional.

He explained that the charges were filed under Section 76 of the Electronic Communications Act, 2008, Act 775, but said the law does not criminalise ordinary remarks made by individuals.

“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.”

Professor Asare also noted that the police failed to demonstrate that Ebo Noah’s actions met the legal threshold required under 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…CONTINUE MORE READING>>>