Dear Samson Anyenini,
I have always wanted to write to you, to express my gratitude for your service to Ghana and the world, and to commend you for upholding journalistic ethics and standards. At a time when many practitioners compromise ethical values for the sake of driving traffic to their programs, making money, increasing their following, associating with influential individuals, or gaining favors from political actors, you stood out. You consistently maintained objectivity, fairness, balance, and a strong sense of integrity in your reportage. Your dedication to ethical journalism, coupled with your advocacy for press freedom, has always been admirable.
Your skill and courage in practicing your craft naturally earned you a loyal audience. Even your critics were drawn to your program because of your objective and independent analysis of issues and your professional handling of panel discussions. These qualities made your show a must-watch for many.
However, it appears that something changed after the tragic death of Ahmed Suale—may his soul rest in peace. I do not know the personal connection you had with him, but professionally, he was part of the journalism family. The entire nation was devastated by his untimely demise, especially considering the brutal manner of his death. I understand the pain you must have felt as an advocate of press freedom. In your quest for justice for him, you used your platform to analyze events preceding his death, attempting to establish the cause and identify the perpetrators of that heinous act.
Unfortunately, in the process, it seemed your objectivity wavered. Your criticisms of Hon. Kennedy Ohene Agyapong became personal, and you eventually blacklisted him on your program. Initially, I did not see anything wrong with your stance, given the emotional toll the incident must have had on you. However, with time, it became apparent that this experience may have unconsciously clouded your judgment.
I want to highlight how your reportage on the Ahmed Suale case and related issues has appeared increasingly unfair and biased. The matter, which began with Ahmed Suale’s tragic death, evolved into a conflict between Kennedy Ohene Agyapong and Anas Aremeyaw Anas—Suale’s employer. Unfortunately, this issue seems to have consumed you, affecting your objectivity and professional conduct.
It all begun when you used your platform to allege that Kennedy Ohene Agyapong was responsible for Ahmed Suale’s death—an accusation made without any factual evidence. This claim was primarily based on the notion that Kennedy revealed Suale’s identity and called for him to be assaulted wherever he was seen. However, this narrative is misleading. How can one “reveal” the identity of someone who was never hidden? Those whom Anas investigated were aware of Ahmed Suale, and in some of Anas’s own investigative pieces, Suale’s face was visible as he was the one who was fronting for Anas in coordinating most of his meetings with victims. Therefore, it is inaccurate to claim that Kennedy exposed his identity.
Furthermore, the allegation that Kennedy asked people to beat Suale wherever they saw him is also misleading. His statement was specific to the premises of Ken City, suggesting that if Suale was seen there, he should be stopped due to suspicions that he might be attempting to set them up. This is a crucial context that your analysis often ignored.
This bias became more evident when you began referring to Kennedy as corrupt and unfit for public office. Instead of offering him a chance to respond on your platform, you appeared to have judged him without a fair hearing, violating the principles of balanced journalism you were once known for. Your decision to blacklist him, denying your audience access to any news involving him except those that painted him negatively, further demonstrated this bias.
Your approach became further questionable when Anas lost his defamation suit against Kennedy Ohene Agyapong in Ghana. Rather than providing a balanced analysis, you utilized your platform to cast doubt on the credibility and integrity of the court’s verdict, insinuating the possibility of foul play. Such actions not only undermined the authority of the judiciary but also misled your audience.
Matters worsened when you subsequently interviewed Anas’s lawyer following the reading of a jury’s judgment in the defamation case against Kennedy in the United States. The lawyer misrepresented several aspects of the case, particularly regarding the damages awarded, suggesting an exaggerated outcome. Unfortunately, your platform amplified this misinformation without extending an opportunity to Kennedy’s legal team to clarify or offer a counter-narrative.
Your partiality became even more apparent when the final verdict was delivered. Despite the jury’s initial assessment, which you and Anas’s lawyer had publicly celebrated, the court ultimately awarded Anas a mere $500—far below the anticipated $18 million figure previously mentioned. Yet, instead of acknowledging the factual outcome and holding Anas’s lawyer accountable for the misleading statements, you chose not to offer him another interview to explain the inconsistencies. Rather, you continued to use your platform to cast aspersions on Kennedy Agyapong’s character while expressing support for Anas.
More recently, your comment on Kofi Bentil’s post exposed your deep-seated bias against Kennedy Agyapong. Such actions have raised concerns about your professional objectivity. It appears you have become entangled in personal grievances rather than maintaining a focus on national interest and fair journalism.
When one chooses to engage extensively in the internal affairs of others and offers favoritism commentary on their leadership choices, it is reasonable for observers to infer an alignment with the entities involved. This phenomenon is exemplified by individuals such as Paul Adom-Otchere, who has openly identified himself as a right-wing journalist. Consequently, his editorials are naturally inclined to favor that ideological perspective. His candor is appreciated by the Ghanaian public, who, being aware of his declared stance, know precisely what to expect from his commentary. Notably, he does not exhibit the same degree of bias towards his own affiliations as you do while purporting to maintain an independent position.
You have been criticized and labeled as a sympathizer of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) by the National Democratic Congress (NDC) due to your perceived association with Dr. Bawumia, as reflected in your editorial content—an association inferred not merely from your critique of NDC policies. Consequently, a significant segment of discerning information consumers has gradually distanced themselves from your program.
Furthermore, it is now evident that even members of the party you were previously accused of favoring have begun to perceive you as lacking consistency and professionalism. Their belief is that you are attempting to realign with the current administration by adopting a critical stance towards their party and its members.
This morning, coming across a letter from the “Concerned Lawyers of NPP,” I felt compelled to bring this matter to your attention. It is disheartening to witness an individual of your stature experiencing a progressive erosion of credibility across various fronts. This perception is damaging, especially considering your once-esteemed reputation.
I do not know what you aim to achieve with this new approach, but as an ardent follower, I believe your integrity and reputation are valuable assets you should protect. I advise you to engage in self-reflection and consider returning to the ethical journalism that once defined you. Allow the issue of Kennedy Agyapong, Ahmed Suale, and Anas to rest as you are being consumed by it and it’s making you to lose focus. You are not the only journalist who cares about justice; others can continue pursuing it.
Samson, you were once a beacon of independent, ethical journalism. I urge you to engage in sincere self-reflection. Consider whether it is worth allowing personal emotions to overshadow your professional integrity. Reclaim your place as a trusted, impartial voice by letting go of personal conflicts that continue to cloud your reputation. Allow others to champion personal battles while you refocus on the core principles that once defined your brand—fairness, accuracy, and professionalism.
Remember, credibility is hard-earned but easily lost. It is not too late to restore your image and reaffirm your legacy as a journalist who serves the public interest with truth and integrity.
Thank you for your patience in reading this letter. I hope it serves as a sincere and constructive reflection.
Yours sincerely, a concerned follower,
Bangahim
