In a world irreversibly shaped by digital transformation, the law cannot afford to remain analog while society evolves at the speed of technology. Yet, in Ghana, there remains a troubling gap between the rapid advancement of data-driven technologies and the judiciary’s preparedness to adjudicate on issues of data protection, privacy, cybercrime, and artificial intelligence.
This is not merely a theoretical concern. It has immediate and practical consequences for justice delivery, rights protection, and national development.
The Rise of the Data Subject — and the Risks They Face
The Data Protection Act, 2012 (Act 843), was enacted to guarantee the rights of data subjects — individuals whose personal information is processed by others. The law imposes strict obligations on data controllers and processors to handle personal data responsibly, fairly, and securely.
Yet every day, we witness:
Unauthorized disclosures of personal information on social media
Massive corporate data breaches with little to no remedy
Surveillance practices without transparency or safeguards
AI-driven profiling with discriminatory or harmful outcomes
In such an environment, privacy harms are no longer theoretical; they are lived realities. The legal system must be the bulwark that defends the citizenry — yet a judiciary unfamiliar with data protection principles is ill-equipped for this urgent task.
Analog Judges in a Digital Era
Many of our current judges and legal practitioners were trained in an era when privacy meant physical seclusion, not the protection of digital footprints.
But today, privacy is about:
Controlling how personal data is collected, used, shared, or sold.
Demanding transparency and accountability from corporations and governments alike.
Recognizing privacy violations even when there is no physical trespass, only digital intrusion.
If judges do not understand what constitutes a privacy breach, what harm data misuse can cause, or how algorithms make biased decisions, how can they deliver justice in an era dominated by technology?
Without technical and legal fluency in data protection, our judiciary risks:
Misapplying or underapplying Act 843 in cybercrime and privacy-related cases
Failing to recognize complex privacy harms (such as emotional distress, loss of autonomy, or algorithmic bias)
Eroding trust in the legal system among an increasingly tech-savvy population
Data Controllers and Processors: The Silent Power Brokers
Many companies and public institutions in Ghana today act as data controllers and data processors, handling vast amounts of personal data — often with minimal oversight.
Their obligations under the law are clear:
Obtain valid consent before processing personal data
Implement appropriate security safeguards
Notify the Data Protection Commission and affected individuals in the event of a data breach
Respect the rights of data subjects — including access, correction, and deletion of personal data
When these obligations are breached, the law provides remedies. But if the judiciary does not fully comprehend these obligations, wronged data subjects may never see justice realized.
This deficiency emboldens reckless behavior by organizations that treat data protection as a box-ticking exercise rather than a fundamental human rights obligation.
The Future: AI, Biometrics, and Beyond
Ghana stands on the cusp of widespread use of:
AI-driven services
Facial recognition technologies Automated decision-making systems in banking, healthcare, and governance
Each innovation brings new legal and ethical challenges. Tomorrow’s court cases will involve questions of algorithmic fairness, AI accountability, and automated privacy violations.
If our judiciary remains digitally illiterate, Ghana will find itself unable to defend citizens against sophisticated digital rights violations. The time for capacity-building is now.
A Call to Action for the Legal Fraternity
The legal fraternity — lawyers, judges, law lecturers, and policymakers — must act decisively:
Mandatory Judicial Training: Integrate data protection, privacy law, cybersecurity, and AI ethics into judicial education programs.
Law School Curriculum Reform: Make data protection and technology law compulsory courses in LLB and professional law training.
Specialized Courts: Establish technology and data protection courts or assign specialist judges to handle digital rights cases.
Continuous Professional Development: Offer regular seminars and certifications for practicing lawyers on emerging digital law issues.
Closer Collaboration with Regulators: Courts should work alongside the Data Protection Commission to better understand enforcement and regulatory frameworks.
Final Thoughts: Justice in the Digital Age Requires Digital Competence
If the Ghanaian legal system fails to evolve, it will be the powerless who suffer most — ordinary citizens whose privacy is infringed, whose data is misused, and whose dignity is eroded by invisible technological forces. Justice delayed is justice denied. But in the digital age, justice misunderstood is justice obliterated. It is time for the legal fraternity to rise to the occasion. The analog mind must meet the digital reality — or risk becoming irrelevant.
