dw.com
Ghanaian Military Brutality: Repeated Attacks on Civilians Spark Outrage
In March 2024, Ghanaian soldiers beat civilians in Bawku after a fellow soldier was killed; this is part of a pattern of military brutality against civilians in Ghana since 2021, despite the army's generally positive reputation, drawing criticism and calls for investigations.
- What systemic factors within the Ghanaian military and government contribute to the lack of accountability for soldiers' actions against civilians?
- The repeated use of excessive force by Ghanaian soldiers against civilians reveals a pattern of impunity and a lack of accountability. These incidents, occurring across various regions from 2021 to 2024, highlight a systemic issue within the military, despite its generally positive reputation. The lack of response from authorities fuels further concern.
- What concrete steps can the Ghanaian government and military take to prevent future attacks and ensure accountability for human rights abuses by its personnel?
- The continued failure to hold perpetrators accountable for attacks on civilians by Ghanaian soldiers will likely lead to further violence and erode public trust in the military. A transparent and standardized approach to investigations and sanctions is urgently needed to prevent similar incidents and restore confidence. The lack of action sets a dangerous precedent.
- What are the immediate consequences of the repeated violent actions of the Ghanaian military against civilians, and how does it impact the country's image and stability?
- In mid-March 2024, soldiers in Bawku, Ghana, beat civilians, including women and children, after a fellow soldier was killed. This followed similar incidents in 2023 and 2021, where excessive force was used against civilians by the Ghanaian military. The attacks have drawn criticism and calls for investigations.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and introductory paragraph immediately establish a negative tone, focusing on the negative actions of some soldiers and their impact on the army's reputation. This sets a framework that emphasizes the negative aspects of the situation and might predispose the reader to a critical view of the military, even before the detailed accounts of events are provided. The sequencing of events, starting with civilian accounts of violence, further reinforces this negative perspective.
Language Bias
The article uses strong language such as "brutalized," "beat up," and "whipped." While accurately reflecting the alleged actions, these words contribute to a negative portrayal. Using more neutral alternatives such as "assaulted," "struck," or "attacked" might convey the same information with less emotional charge. The repeated use of "attacks" also contributes to a negative framing.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on civilian accounts of military brutality but lacks details on the perspectives of the soldiers involved. While mentioning retaliatory attacks, it doesn't delve into the specifics of the provocations or the soldiers' justifications (if any). It also omits information regarding any internal military investigations or disciplinary actions taken prior to the reported incidents. The lack of military perspective could create an unbalanced narrative.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat false dichotomy by portraying the situation as simply soldiers versus civilians. It doesn't fully explore the complexities of the underlying chieftaincy disputes and land ownership conflicts that might fuel the violence, nor does it adequately consider potential systemic issues within the military contributing to these incidents.
Gender Bias
While the article mentions that women, children and the elderly were among those beaten, there's no explicit gender bias in the reporting. However, the analysis would be strengthened by exploring whether the violence disproportionately affected women or whether gender played a role in the types of violence experienced.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights multiple instances of excessive force by Ghanaian soldiers against civilians, resulting in injuries and property damage. This undermines the rule of law, erodes public trust in security forces, and hinders efforts to promote peaceful and inclusive societies. The lack of accountability for perpetrators further exacerbates the issue, creating a climate of impunity.