Gomoa Central MP Kwame Asare Obeng, widely known as A Plus, has rejected allegations that he was paid to manipulate media coverage of a scandal involving officials of the National Service Secretariat, saying his role was limited to facilitating a platform.
Speaking on KSM’s Unfiltered, A Plus said his involvement was strictly professional and transparent, focused on arranging media engagements for affected parties to present their side after a court injunction temporarily restrained the airing of an investigative report by The Fourth Estate.
He explained that once a judge placed an injunction on the report and the other side requested to be heard, it was only right to let people tell their side of the story. The MP maintained that allowing parties to explain themselves does not amount to suppressing investigative journalism.
Addressing claims that he was paid to kill the story or influence the narrative, A Plus dismissed the suggestion as unrealistic in today’s media environment. He argued that media power is now decentralised and no single individual can dictate public discourse, questioning how it would be possible to control all the people on TikTok, Facebook and YouTube.
The MP stated that thinking someone can decide what individual journalists or media houses will say is not how media works anymore. He added that all the allegations came out anyway, indicating that nobody killed any story.
A Plus defended receiving payment for organising media engagements, insisting that charging for professional services does not amount to influencing or distorting news coverage. He stated that he does not move his car from his house to help people tell their stories for free, emphasising that his services as a communication facilitator come at a cost.
He explained that his role was to bring media platforms together so parties affected by allegations could respond publicly. According to A Plus, if someone wants him to help tell their side of the story, they must bring money, and he will arrange a press conference and bring the media and bloggers to hear them.
The MP stressed that facilitating access to the media is fundamentally different from attempting to influence editorial content. He noted that being paid to organise communication does not give him control over how journalists report issues, comparing his role to that of a logistics provider rather than an editorial influence.
A Plus emphasised that the focus is simple: when someone has an issue and a side of the story to tell, that side must be told. He compared media access to court proceedings, noting that judges ask for both sides of a story, and the media also exists for people to be heard.
Responding directly to claims that he was engaged to influence coverage in a particular direction, the MP was emphatic, stating he was not paid to spin anything and only made sure affected parties were able to speak. His comments suggest he views his role as providing communication logistics rather than shaping narrative content.
The controversy surrounding the National Service Secretariat matter involved allegations that prompted an investigative report by The Fourth Estate, which was subsequently subject to a court injunction. The legal action temporarily prevented the media house from airing its findings, creating space for other parties to present their versions of events.
Court injunctions against media reports remain controversial in Ghana, with press freedom advocates arguing they can be used to suppress legitimate journalism. However, those subject to investigative scrutiny argue they have rights to respond and present their perspectives before damaging allegations become public.
A Plus has built a public profile combining political office with media activism and communication consultancy. His willingness to engage in controversial matters and facilitate public discourse has made him a polarising figure, with supporters praising his directness and critics questioning his methods.
The MP’s defense of charging for communication services reflects broader questions about the boundaries between legitimate public relations work and unethical influence peddling. While paying for press conference logistics is standard practice, concerns arise when payments appear designed to shape editorial decisions or suppress unfavorable coverage.
Whether A Plus’s explanation will satisfy critics remains unclear. His emphasis on the impossibility of controlling decentralised digital media platforms acknowledges the reality that information flows through multiple channels beyond traditional gatekeepers, making narrative control increasingly difficult.
The National Service Secretariat matter continues to attract attention as various parties present competing accounts. How the allegations are ultimately resolved will depend partly on continued media scrutiny and any legal proceedings that follow the initial injunction.
