In recent times, a Ghanaian content creator popularly known as Ebo Noah captured widespread public attention after declaring that the world would end on December 25, 2025. According to him, God had revealed an imminent destruction of the world, and he was constructing an “ark” where people could seek refuge before the catastrophe.
Through a steady stream of videos, Ebo Noah warned that the last days were near. His message was presented not as fiction or symbolism, but as divine instruction. As the content circulated widely on social media, many Ghanaians took the claims seriously.
Fear, anxiety, and confusion spread, especially among a deeply religious population already dealing with economic and social pressures.
Then, shortly before the predicted date, just days or about a week to December 25, Ebo Noah released another message.
This time, he announced that God had forgiven the world, particularly Ghanaians, and the destruction would no longer happen. Almost instantly, public fear turned into relief. Social media was flooded with celebrations, praise, and thanksgiving.
But beyond the relief lies a critical national question: can individuals cause fear and panic in society and walk away freely simply because the predicted disaster did not occur?
Ghana’s recent history suggests that such situations are usually treated with seriousness. In past cases, individuals who spread false information capable of causing public panic have faced arrest and prosecution.
A notable example involved Shatta Wale, who was arrested after false reports of his death went viral. In the same incident, a pastor who publicly claimed to have prophesied his death was also arrested. The state acted on grounds of misinformation and public disturbance.
There have been other instances where exaggerated prophecies, fake warnings, or misleading public claims led to investigations or arrests.
The guiding principle has been clear: freedom of expression does not extend to the deliberate creation of fear and panic. This is why the Ebo Noah episode raises serious concerns.
If society begins to celebrate individuals who make extreme, unverified claims, mobilise fear, gain attention, and later retract those claims without accountability, it sets a dangerous precedent. It risks turning fear into content, prophecy into performance, and public anxiety into a tool for relevance.
The issue is not whether the world ended, it is not even whether God forgave humanity; the real issue is accountability.
The law does not wait for harm to occur before acting, but it exists to prevent panic, disorder, and psychological distress.
The fact that the prophecy did not materialise does not erase the fear, confusion, and emotional impact experienced by those who believed it.
As a society, we must reflect carefully on whether we are simply celebrating relief or are we quietly endorsing irresponsibility? Because if fear can be created today and forgiven tomorrow without consequence, then anyone can predict doom, trend online, and walk away untouched.
And that should concern us all.
About the Author
