For months, the New Patriotic Party’s (NPP) communications machinery has dominated public discourse with a single, consistent narrative: that President John Dramani Mahama’s government represents a threat to free expression in Ghana. What’s notable isn’t just the claim itself, but how effectively it has been framed as the default lens through which media and public debate discuss President Mahama and the National Democratic Congress.

The government’s approach has played a direct role in letting this malicious and fabricated agenda take hold. Rather than confronting the framing directly or redirecting attention to policy substance, official channels have often responded reactively. Each time an NPP spokesperson, communicator or party official raises the “Mahama and free speech” rendition, it re-enters the news cycle without a counter-framing that shifts the terrain of the argument. In political communication, whoever sets the question usually controls the conversation, and the NPP have achieved this.

Three mechanisms explain how this has worked:

i. Repetition without reframing: The accusation has been repeated across press conferences, radio interviews, and social media posts. Without a competing narrative from government-aligned communicators, repetition becomes familiarity. In public perception, familiarity starts to stand in for fact.

ii. Control of the news cycle: By introducing the accusation at moments when President Mahama is making policy statements or campaign appearances, the NPP shifts attention from the content of his proposals to his record on civil liberties. The government’s communication team has not consistently created alternative news hooks that force coverage back to its own priorities.

iii. Leveraging media incentives: Controversy drives coverage. An accusation that pits a major party against a sitting president is inherently newsworthy. When the government does not actively supply journalists with data, quotes, or events that change the story angle, the existing frame persists by default.

The consequence is that public debate often starts with the premise that President Mahama’s stance on free speech is the central issue to adjudicate. That forces the NDC into a defensive posture, spending time and political capital refuting the claim rather than advancing its own agenda.

If the goal was to neutralize this false claims, it would require proactive agenda-setting: putting forward specific initiatives, data, and spokespersons who consistently reframe the discussion around governance, economic policy, and future plans towards the “Reset Agenda”. Without that, the side that speaks first and most consistently on a topic ends up defining it.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that must be protect and preserved. President Mahama will never curtail freedom of speech. It is unacceptable for the government and the NDC to sit aloof and allow the NPP to successfully set this false agenda.

The NDC and government communication team must find the most effective way to break this framing if they want to shift the conversation back to policy.