My comments about Akufo-Addo banning me from GBC not defamatory

Historian and legal practitioner Yaw Anokye Frimpong has strongly defended his claims that former President Nana Akufo-Addo was responsible for his removal from a programme on the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation, insisting that his statements are factual and not defamatory.

Dr. Frimpong alleges that the incident occurred during Akufo-Addo’s tenure in office, following his public commentary in which he praised Ghana’s first President, Kwame Nkrumah. According to him, his consistent emphasis on Nkrumah’s legacy may have contributed to the decision to take him off the air.

Speaking in an interview on Angel FM, the historian reiterated his position and maintained that the former President had a direct personal interest in his removal from the programme.

“I know he is listening to me. Some time ago when he was in power, I was speaking on GBC and he rang them to have me removed from the show because I was heaping too much praise on Nkrumah and not him or JB Danquah,” he alleged.

Dr. Frimpong emphasized that his remarks should not be misconstrued as defamation, stressing that he is recounting his personal experience as he believes it occurred.

“My comments about Akufo-Addo banning me from GBC are not defamatory. I am telling the truth about what happened,” he stated.

He further explained that following the alleged intervention, he was absent from programming on the Ghana Broadcasting Corporation for approximately one year. He attributed this absence directly to the fallout from his historical commentary and outspoken views on Ghana’s political legacy.

The claims have sparked renewed public discussion about media independence, freedom of expression, and the role of political influence in state-owned media institutions. They also feed into broader debates about how Ghana’s historical figures, including Kwame Nkrumah, are represented and discussed in public discourse.

While the allegations remain contested and have not been independently verified, they continue to generate conversation within both media and political circles, raising questions about the relationship between political leadership and editorial decisions in public broadcasting.