1. Introduction: A longstanding culture of impunity

For too long, passengers on Ghana’s commercial vehicles have been expected to tolerate unsolicited preaching, endure fundraising appeals, and negotiate peace and quiet with strangers who claim to speak for God. When a passenger objects, the ensuing confrontation turns a simple commute into a tense battle for public attention. How has calling oneself a pastor become sufficient authority to address a captive audience, collect its money, and dismiss its concerns? The national call to address the impunity that allows self-proclaimed pastors to claim authority over passengers without their consent is therefore timely.

The current controversy concerns a restriction that has been in place for years. According to a BBC report published by MyJoyOnline on 5 October, preaching on commercial buses was prohibited in 2012; however, inadequate enforcement allowed the practice to continue. Passengers who objected were often left to challenge preachers themselves, despite the existing prohibition. Fourteen years later, renewed enforcement efforts have prompted objections from some religious leaders. Those objections should not distract from the protection that passengers have been denied for far too long. Why were passengers left to confront preachers on their own when the authorities had already prohibited the practice?

Reports of passengers clashing with preachers over unsolicited preaching are not new. In November 2023, YEN reported a dispute on a trotro in which a passenger demanded that a preacher stop disrupting the ride, while another passenger urged the man of God to continue. These clashes underscore why the state should grant transport operators clear authority and support to prevent disturbances and ensure passengers are not left to confront unsolicited preaching on their own. Passengers who have paid for a journey should not have to argue with someone claiming to speak for God simply to travel in peace.

Long familiarity can make abuse seem normal. When passengers learn to tolerate this impunity, operators avoid intervening, and these men of God gain authority through repetition rather than consent. Over time, passengers who raise reasonable objections are treated as the source of the disturbance, while the conduct that provokes them escapes scrutiny. This unfair treatment of passengers makes effective enforcement even more important. The fact that a practice has continued for years does not justify letting it continue unquestioned.

2. When anyone can claim religious authority

A stranger can enter a vehicle, announce that they are a pastor, and expect that authority to be accepted immediately. Passengers may have no way to verify their background, religious affiliation, or accountability to a congregation. The title is self-declared, yet it can carry substantial weight. Questions about their conduct may be treated as disrespectful toward God. But we need to ask why simply calling oneself a pastor allows someone to claim authority over passengers without being challenged.

While the identities and affiliations of some ministers may be established, the concern is the expectation that every claim to ministerial status be accepted without question. Neither a bible nor a clerical collar establishes an individual’s integrity. Passengers should be able to question a preacher’s conduct without being required to assess their spirituality. Religious freedom does not render claims of religious authority immune to ordinary scrutiny.

The exhausted traveller may need some sleep. A professional may be preparing a presentation on a laptop or organising ideas on a tablet for a meeting. A student may be studying, or someone may be managing a headache. These needs do not disappear simply because a stranger wishes to preach. Nor does silence constitute consent. Exiting a moving vehicle is impossible, and alighting at a later stop may result in losing a fare or missing an appointment. Thus, a preference for silence may simply be the least confrontational response.

The issue is that a preacher’s introduction may be accepted without verification. Giving a name and claiming to represent a church does not establish that either claim is genuine. It is unclear whether transport operators verify these details or keep records that would help identify and locate the person if complaints arise. This is particularly concerning when preachers also sell medicines. If a passenger develops health complications after using a product, the seller may be difficult to trace once the journey ends, making it harder to investigate the incident and establish accountability.

3. Collections and financial incentives

When preaching provides a livelihood, questions about financial motivation warrant consideration. In a BBC report published by MyJoyOnline, a bus preacher acknowledged that gifts from passengers help support his family and fund his children’s education. This admission does not establish dishonesty but indicates that bus preaching provides a source of income. Accordingly, defending the practice solely as evangelism leaves an important financial incentive unexplained.

Consider the Accra–Kasoa route for illustrative purposes. A preacher delivers a sermon, collects money, alights at Kasoa, boards another vehicle for the return trip, and repeats the process. If this continues throughout the day, successive groups of passengers become successive sources of income. Repeated collections create a financial incentive that warrants scrutiny. The question is: Would the preacher undertake the same trips with comparable enthusiasm if collecting money were prohibited? Asking this question constitutes reasonable scrutiny of a commercial incentive.

Donations can legitimately support religious work, but that does not justify treating commercial vehicles as venues for repeated fundraising. If every religious group claimed the same freedom to preach and collect money during a journey, passengers would face competing demands for their attention and contributions. This practice cannot be justified simply because one religious group has become accustomed to carrying it out without challenge. A public bus is a shared space, so no religious group should assume that its activities take priority over the needs and beliefs of other passengers.

Therefore, on what basis do these individuals claim that God has chosen them to preach to passengers and collect their money? By divine design, passengers are expected to accept their word without any way to verify it. Even a sincere religious calling cannot justify intimidating people who decline to listen or donate. Thus, anyone claiming to represent God should be willing to explain their purpose, respect refusal, and answer reasonable questions about their conduct.

4. When preaching becomes a medicine pitch

A further concern arises when religious language is used to promote medicines. Preaching and medicine vending have long been features of commercial transport. MyJoyOnline reported in March 2020 that the Ghana Private Road Transport Union intended to prohibit both activities during the COVID-19 emergency. This report does not establish that all medicine vendors are preachers. However, it underscores the need to examine commercial claims made to passengers in God’s name.

When someone invokes God’s name to sell a remedy without credible evidence of its claimed effects, religious confidence is being asked to replace medical scrutiny. A testimony, prayer, or declaration of divine endorsement cannot establish clinical effectiveness. Consumers need reliable information about the product and whether its advertised uses are authorised. The absence of that information should prompt questions, especially when the seller offers sweeping promises of healing.

Ghana’s Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) has guidelines that address evidence for herbal medicinal claims and restrict misleading drug advertising. Its advertising guidelines prohibit absolute claims of guaranteed efficacy and require advertised indications to align with approved labels. These standards apply regardless of whether the seller calls himself a pastor. This is not a blanket dismissal of herbal medicine, but it requires products and claims to undergo appropriate scrutiny, without religious language discouraging questions.

5. Passenger protection must guide the response

Regulation 141 of the Road Traffic Regulations, 2026 (L.I. 2519), addresses nuisances, including preaching and hawking, in moving public or commercial vehicles. President Mahama has explained that the restriction is based on safety concerns and has distinguished between moving and stationary vehicles. However, Citi News reported on October 9 that implementation had been suspended. MyJoyOnline also reported the suspension, citing a high-ranking government source, while noting that further public details were pending. In any event, consultation should clarify how the regulation will be enforced and address the longstanding failure to protect passengers effectively.

While some Christians believe the regulation limits their freedom to spread the Gospel, others consider it necessary to protect passengers and ensure safety. A BBC report records Reverend Enoch Paul Hayes of the International Central Gospel Church (ICGC) saying the rules do not violate religious freedom and urged preachers to find other ways to share the Gospel. The debate is therefore not simply government versus Christianity. Churches themselves can examine whether unsolicited sermons, fundraising pressure, and resistance to scrutiny reflect the ministry they wish to defend.

6. Conclusion

The government should enforce rules that protect passengers, even when some religious leaders object. Transport operators must respond to complaints rather than leave passengers to confront preachers themselves. Christian leaders should also challenge anyone who uses a pastoral title to silence objections, pressure passengers to donate, or promote medicines without evidence for their claims. Years of weak enforcement do not justify allowing these practices to continue.

A passenger who asks a preacher to stop preaching in an unauthorised space should receive consideration, not condemnation. Refusing to donate does not prove a lack of faith, and questioning a medical claim is not an attack on God. Paying for transportation does not constitute consent to a sermon or a collection. Passengers who object should be able to complete their journey without pressure, humiliation, or condemnation. No passenger should have to defend their beliefs to travel in peace. Claiming pastoral authority is no license to disregard the rights and dignity of the people on board.

–

Authored by: Dr Jacob Naabong Dapilah

Tel: +233 267420241/553799358

Email: jacobdapilah@gmail.com