By Yaw Berhene BONSU Esq
The Minister for Communication, Digital Technology and Innovations deserves commendation for the bold initiative to review, overhaul and update the legislative framework for the Information Communication and Technology (ICT) industry in Ghana.
This move could not have come at a better time than now when the speed of technological evolution is outpacing regulatory response. Social media, artificial intelligence, and the politics of big data have opened up a world of endless opportunities in the way people interact than traditional media could envisage.
However, this has also triggered enormous legal pitfalls, from human rights violations, to breach of privacy, socio-cultural ethics and acceptable norms, to reputational and national security concerns arising from offensive content, misinformation, disinformation, and deep fakes.
At the heart of all emerging technologies are three building blocks- data, people, and institutions– each of which exists or must be situated within a robust, responsive, yet flexible legal or regulatory framework, mindful of personal freedoms, yet balanced with responsibilities, without stifling innovation. Thus, regulatory reform is not merely a legal process, but a collective socio-cultural, politico-economic, and technological hotspot.
From the 1st industrial revolution, when the focus was mainly on mechanical production, societies have evolved through the 2nd industrial revolution of mass production driven by electrical energy-based production, to the 3rd revolution of the digital age with the emergence of computer and internet-based knowledge and the 4th revolution of today, built, around artificial intelligence, big data, automation, cybersecurity, and information technology. Thus, uncertainty and rapid transformation has become a common-place feature as digital transformation advances with the speed of light.
To draft policy-relevant interventions to match the pace of technological evolution is the challenge governments have to grapple with continuously.
Indeed, as new technologies emerge, existing regulations go through stress-testing to determine their relevance. Generally, when regulations are passed, they are designed to cover present events and barely extend to situations which are unknown and uncontemplated. As a matter of fact, existing theories of regulation seem poorly equipped to explain regulatory responses to emerging technologies.
Minimal attention has been paid to the convergence of policy and legislation as an effective response to disruptive technologies, and some authors have argued that new technologies are often met with highly polarized debates over how to manage the regulation of such technologies. As some proponents argue for rapid technological development, unfettered by unnecessary and costly regulation, others advocate a stringent regulatory regime to protect against the potential risks such technologies present. This dichotomy results in a long period of fractured, at best partially productive, debate.
It is submitted that policy response to emerging technologies must straddle a fine line of restraint but not indulgence. Whilst regulatory inaction risks exposure of citizens to excessive or unknown legal, social, environmental, and even health hazards, excessive regulation could also limit the development of an extremely promising technology and derail potentially great social, health, environmental, and economic benefits. This convergence of immense potential benefits and uncertain risks presents unique and difficult challenges.
Against this background. policy direction must encompass a structure that would provide needed assurance and protection for the public, greater certainty for industry, and resource and time savings for the government, without stifling creativity and innovation.
Thus, the ability of policymakers to steer the complex relationship between emerging technologies and the larger society is critical in managing the potential benefits as against the risks associated with technological innovation. This requires a flexible, yet consistent context-specific approach to regulation that can adapt to the evolving technological landscape.
Policy consistency refers to the ability of multiple policy tools to reinforce rather than undermine each other in the pursuit of individual policy goals. Legislative coherence is to be viewed in terms of the ability of multiple legislations to co-exist with each other in a logical fashion.
Regulators react in different ways to emerging technologies. In one instance, policy-makers and regulators may prohibit the use of new technologies altogether. On the flip side, they may tolerate – or even promote and nurture the environment for creativity and the reception of new techniques.
In between these extremes, policy-makers and regulators may adopt and adapt moderate approaches to monitor and guide trajectories of technological development and the launch of their applications.
In summary, technology and public policy are deeply intertwined, and effective collaboration between policymakers, the legislature, academia, technologists, the industry, civil society, and consumers is essential to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by the digital age. By fostering dialogue and engagement, it is possible to develop policies that promote innovation, equity, and sustainability in the technological landscape, ensuring that technology serves as a force for good in society.
Ghana’s most recent attempt at a comprehensive policy formulation for the technology industry was the launch of the National Telecommunications Policy in 2005. The policy acknowledged that Government recognised that technology has been rapidly changing and will continue to evolve in unpredictable directions in the future, and that regulation must evolve with these changes, to allow for robust and flexible development of new services, market options and customer choices.
The primary responsibility for the definition and elaboration of Government policy in this direction was placed on the Ministry of Communications- to periodically review the effectiveness and success of the policy and consider amendments and update as appropriate. However, since 2005, the policy saw no review, in spite of the rapid evolution of technology.
Typical of the fragmented approach to policy-making in many sectors of the economy, another policy known as the Digital Economy Policy was launched in 2024, ostensibly to express the vision of the Government in responding to the changes in technology. It acknowledged once again that the rapid pace of technological change presented a challenge in terms of regulatory frameworks and infrastructure, which must continuously evolve to keep pace with innovation; and that the policy set out the vision of Government for a future where Ghana is a fully integrated digital society and a leader in Africa’s digital transformation.
Fast-forward to the year 2025, a new government is inaugurated and the sector Minister makes a bold to review the entire gamut of legislations covering the digital and technological ecosystem in the country. Even before the review kicked off, a number of policy objectives were announced, some departing from or complementary to previous initiatives.
It begs repeating that with the fast pace of technological advancement, the attitude of regulation should be one which is flexible, yet coherent and consistent. It may sound paradoxical, yet it is the surest way to harness the benefits of emerging technologies.
For instance, from 1994 to 2000, Ghana embarked on its Accelerated Development Programme, initiating telecom sector deregulation with cellular providers launching in 1991 and 1993, and the establishment of the National Communications Authority in 1996.
The policy goals during this period were to achieve a phone density of 2.5 lines per 100 people, improve public access via payphones in both rural and urban areas, and create a public regulatory agency. In 2003, the ICT for Accelerated Development Policy was introduced, focusing on the role of information, knowledge, and technology as key enablers of socioeconomic progress. This led to the integration of ICT policy into the country’s overall development objectives.
By 2008, legislative reforms were implemented with the passage of key legislation like the National Communications Act, 2008 (Act 769), the National Information Technology Agency Act, 2008 (Act 771), the Electronic Transactions Act, 2008 (Act 772), and the Electronic Communications Act, 2008 (Act 775).
In 2012, the legislative focus shifted beyond infrastructure to encompass data, content, and services with the passage of the Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843).
Between 2019 and 2020, the digital economy matured globally, and Ghana followed suit by passing the Payment Systems & Services Act, 2019 (Act 987), and the Cybersecurity Act, 2020 (Act 1038). The overall objective of these policies was to drive an ICT-led socio-economic transformation, aiming to make Ghana a middle-income, information-rich, knowledge-based, and technology-driven society.
Strategies from 2003 to 2025 have emphasized ICT literacy, integrating ICT within the economy, leveraging it in education, building R&D capacity, fostering a globally competitive local industry, attracting ICT-focused foreign direct investment, bridging the gender gap, equipping the youth with critical ICT skills, and positioning the private sector as the primary development driver.
The author proposes a new regulatory and policy outlook built on six pillars: (1) faster, yet proactive response of legislation to technological evolution, (2) filling newly exposed or created regulatory gaps; (3) avoidance of duplicity and functional overlaps; (4) enhancing agency expertise and coordination; (5) providing for policy adaptability and flexibility; and, (6) achieving substantial, diverse multi-stakeholder involvement or collaboration. Additionally, the reforms should aim at strengthening the functional independence of the regulatory authorities, enhancing transparency in their decision-making processes, local content and equity participation, fair competition and consumer protection, strong reliable, and impartial dispute resolution mechanisms, and enforcement capacity.
Whilst at it, it is proposed that time and space be spent on the question of whether the approach to regulations should be convergence or divergence. Has the current multi-agency, splintered, approach to regulation served the country and the industry well?
Essentially, there are two models of leadership organization for regulatory authorities: (i) the collegial body (a Board or Commission with overarching regulatory oversight); and (ii) the multiple sector-specific regulatory approach. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and variations of each model are in use around the world.
The collegial body model usually involves a board or commission with sub units, departments or agencies comprising individuals with different areas of expertise, potentially bringing those varied perspectives to bear on each regulatory issue. A collegial body could be seen as more independent, as it is less likely that all members would be influenced by the same actors, whether in the government or the private sector. However, the development of regulatory decisions can be a slower process and more subject to internal struggle.
By comparison, the specific multi sector regulatory model has the potential benefit of a consistent approach to regulation and decision-making. However, this fragmented approach is also potentially more vulnerable to undue influence and weakened independence exerted by external actors, whether in the government or in the private sector. It may also not be able to match the expertise of a collegial body made up of individuals from different backgrounds, although experienced staff can provide substantial expertise.
Both models continue to fluctuate as governments restructure their regulatory frameworks for the telecommunications sector. According to the International Communication Union (ITU), approximately 75 percent of regulators are collegial bodies with the remaining 25 percent constituting single regulators. Significant differences continue to exist between the balance of collegial bodies and single regulators across the various regions.
Ultimately, the choice of one or the other requires an assessment of various factors, including the country‘s needs and objectives, political environment, legal requirements, and available expertise in the labour market. The reform process may consider a merger, realignment, or consolidation of some regulatory agencies or functions guided by international best practices both within the sub region and across the continent.
In whichever direction the legislative reform exercise goes, the process should birth a robust, proactive, yet flexible framework which balances innovation with responsibility, encourages investments, fosters growth of the industry, and guarantees consumer protection as well as our socio-cultural, political, and fundamental values as a country.
The responsibility on the shoulders of the Minister is heavy, but surmountable. We can only wish him well.
The writer is a Lawyer, Policy Advocate, and Tech Enthusiast
