University of Ghana Demands Retraction of False LGBT+ Claims from Foh-Amoaning or Face Legal Action

Introduction

In a bold stand against misinformation, the University of Ghana (UG) has demanded that private legal practitioner Moses Foh-Amoaning retract false LGBT+ claims he made about the institution’s statutes. This controversy erupted after Foh-Amoaning alleged during an Onua FM interview that UG had amended its 2024 statutes to “admit LGBT+ actions.” UG swiftly labeled these statements as “entirely false, misleading, and defamatory,” clarifying that changes involved only gender-neutral pronouns like “they” and “their” to modernize language.

This incident highlights the critical need for fact-checking in public discourse, especially on sensitive topics like LGBT+ rights in Ghana, where misinformation can erode trust in educational institutions. Published reports from GhanaInternet on November 21, 2024, amplified the claims, prompting UG’s official response on November 24, 2024. This guide breaks down the University of Ghana Foh Amoaning controversy, offering a pedagogical exploration to educate readers on verification, institutional governance, and the risks of unverified allegations.

Background on the Claims

Moses Foh-Amoaning, known for his commentary on social issues, made the remarks on Onua FM’s Yen Nsempa program. UG’s press release emphasized that no provisions endorsing LGBT+ activities were introduced, underscoring adherence to national guidelines.

Analysis

The UG Foh Amoaning LGBT claims dispute reveals deeper issues in media responsibility and public commentary in Ghana. Foh-Amoaning’s assertion misrepresented routine statute updates as ideological shifts, ignoring the mundane reality of linguistic modernization.

Understanding Statute Amendments

University statutes are formal governance documents outlining operational rules. UG’s 2024 review replaced pronouns like “he” and “she” with “they” and “their” to align with contemporary English standards. This practice, endorsed by style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style and APA, reduces repetition and promotes inclusivity without implying endorsement of any lifestyle. In legal and academic contexts worldwide, including Ghanaian institutions, such changes ensure clarity and brevity.

Impact of Misinformation

False claims about LGBT+ policies in Ghanaian universities can incite division, particularly in a country where same-sex activities remain criminalized under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). UG’s response protects its reputation, Vice-Chancellor Prof. Nana Aba Appiah Amfo, and the community from unwarranted attacks. The institution noted that no single official, including the Vice-Chancellor, holds unilateral amendment power—changes follow rigorous governance processes.

Media outlets like Onua FM and GhanaInternet played a role by broadcasting unverified statements, prompting UG to urge greater accountability. This case exemplifies how echo chambers amplify distortions, affecting public perception of higher education.

Summary

To encapsulate the retract false LGBT+ claims UG to Foh Amoaning saga: On November 21, 2024, Foh-Amoaning claimed UG’s statutes now support LGBT+ actions. UG’s November 24 rebuttal clarified the changes as purely linguistic, demanding retraction, apology, and warning of legal action. The university reaffirmed its commitment to ethical governance amid threats to its integrity.

Key Points

Practical Advice

For individuals, media, and institutions navigating similar misinformation on LGBT+ claims in Ghana, here is actionable guidance rooted in best practices.

For Public Commentators like Foh-Amoaning

Verify sources before airing claims. Cross-check statute documents via official channels like UG’s governance portal. Use primary evidence, such as the full 2024 statutes, to substantiate statements.

For Media Organizations

Implement fact-checking protocols: Consult institutions directly pre-publication. Label opinions clearly and provide context on sensitive topics like Ghana university LGBT policies.

For Educational Institutions

Proactively communicate changes via press releases and websites. Engage legal teams early for defamation risks. Foster transparency with public statute access to preempt rumors.

Example: Institutions can host webinars on governance updates, educating stakeholders on pronoun evolution in legal texts—from Shakespeare’s use of singular “they” to modern adoption.

Points of Caution

Misinformation carries risks, especially in conservative contexts like Ghana.

Dangers of Unverified LGBT+ Claims

Such statements can fuel stigma, protests, or policy backlash against universities. They undermine academic freedom and divert resources from core missions like research and teaching.

Personal and Institutional Reputational Harm

Foh-Amoaning’s remarks included a “personal attack” on the Vice-Chancellor, deemed disrespectful. Institutions must safeguard leaders’ integrity, as baseless queries erode leadership credibility.

Societal Division

In Ghana, where public opinion on LGBT+ issues is polarized, false narratives risk escalating tensions. Caution against amplifying unverified content on platforms like Onua FM.

Comparison

This University of Ghana controversy mirrors other Ghanaian misinformation cases.

Similar Incidents in Ghana

In 2021, false claims about LGBT+ clubs at the University of Cape Coast led to investigations, revealing no such entities—echoing UG’s pronoun clarification. Nationally, the 2024 Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill debates saw misreported university stances, prompting similar retractions.

Global Parallels

In the UK, Oxford University’s 2019 pronoun guidelines faced backlash as “woke” overreach, but were linguistic updates like UG’s. In the US, Harvard’s style guides adopting “they” sparked debates, resolved via transparency—lessons for UG.

Unlike these, UG’s proactive legal threat sets a precedent for African universities combating defamation.

Legal Implications

Applicable under Ghanaian law, UG’s threat of action targets defamation per the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), Sections 182-184, punishing false statements harming reputation. Civil remedies under tort law allow damages for libel.

Defamation Threshold

Foh-Amoaning’s “misleading and defamatory” claims meet criteria: published (Onua FM, GhanaInternet), false (UG statutes unchanged re: LGBT+), damaging (personal attack on Vice-Chancellor).

Procedural Path

Non-compliance post-deadline could lead to lawsuit filing at High Court. Precedents like Agyeman v. Kumasi Metropolitan Assembly (defamation win for public body) support UG. Foh-Amoaning must prove truth as defense—unlikely without evidence.

Media face indirect liability for republication without verification, per Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323).

Conclusion

The UG demands retraction from Foh-Amoaning underscores vigilance against false LGBT+ claims in academia. By clarifying gender-neutral updates as standard practice, UG upholds transparency and governance. This pedagogical review equips readers to discern facts, promoting informed discourse.

Ultimately, retraction and apology would resolve tensions, allowing focus on UG’s global mission. Institutions worldwide should adopt UG’s model: swift rebuttals, legal readiness, and media accountability to combat misinformation.

FAQ