Associate Professor of Accounting and Finance, Professor Sharif Mahmud Khalid, has directly challenged claims that Ghana’s democracy is currently under siege. He argues that available international indicators do not support such a conclusion. Professor Khalid, who also serves as an Economic Adviser to the Vice-President, made these remarks during a discussion on JoyNews The Pulse on Saturday, August 8, 2026.
Professor Khalid’s comments were part of a broader discussion concerning the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) 'Democracy Under Attack' demonstration. He stressed that Ghana’s democratic state should be evaluated using empirical evidence. This approach, he explained, is more reliable than relying on isolated political incidents or partisan narratives. He specifically pointed to Ghana’s strong position in international press freedom assessments as a key indicator that should inform this debate.
This perspective fits into Ghana's ongoing political discourse, where the health of its democratic institutions is frequently debated. The nation has consistently been viewed as a beacon of democracy in West Africa. However, recent political tensions have led some factions to question the stability of its democratic framework. Professor Khalid’s intervention seeks to ground these discussions in verifiable data, moving beyond anecdotal evidence.
“Let’s look at the data, not even from the government side, but from international institutions that are seen as watchdogs of democracy,” Professor Khalid stated. He highlighted Ghana’s ranking as 39th out of 180 countries globally for press freedom. Furthermore, Ghana ranks fourth in Africa in these assessments. He questioned whether such a high ranking is consistent with a democracy under siege.
The implications of this argument are significant for Ghana’s international standing and domestic political stability. If international indicators consistently show a robust democratic environment, it could bolster investor confidence and reinforce Ghana’s reputation. Decision-makers and political parties will need to consider this data when framing their arguments about the country’s democratic health. The debate will likely continue to focus on the balance between perceived political incidents and broader institutional performance.
Professor Khalid further emphasized the relevance of this data. He noted that these assessments are produced by independent organizations that monitor democratic governance and freedoms. They are not generated by the government itself. “Is this a democracy that is under siege, or is this data reflective of a democracy under siege?” he asked, underscoring his point.
He also urged Ghanaians to consider other international governance indicators, such as the Mo Ibrahim Index, when assessing the country's democratic performance. While acknowledging that Ghana has experienced incidents raising concerns about democratic rights, he cautioned against using individual cases to conclude that the entire democratic system is under attack. His position advocates for a comprehensive, data-driven analysis of Ghana's democratic landscape.
The NPP’s 'Democracy Under Attack' demonstration had accused the government of arbitrary arrests, selective justice, intimidation of political opponents, and attempts to undermine democratic institutions. Professor Khalid maintained that the ongoing debate should prioritize measurable evidence and broader institutional performance. He reiterated, “We probably want to look at the Mo Ibrahim Index on governance and where we are. Are these empirics emanating from the government machinery? No. They are coming from watchdogs — local watchdogs, but even international watchdogs.”