The recent demolition of the Polo Beach Club during a clearance operation along the La beachfront, has once again brought the issue of land, development and political influence into the partisan arena.
What is particularly interesting about the controversy is the manner in which the matter has been presented in the media, with former New Patriotic Party (NPP) Chairman Freddie Blay claiming that the demolition was politically motivated.
The bigger question, however, is this: Why is Freddie Blay speaking for his son, Kwaw Worsemao Blay, who is an adult and, presumably, capable of defending his own interests?
The Polo Beach Club, which was reportedly affected by the demolition exercise, belongs to Kwame Blay.
Curiously, whenever issues concerning his son’s business interests arise, it appears to be the former NPP chairman who steps forward to defend him.
When the Akufo-Addo administration’s attempt to sell the Labadi Beach Hotel became a subject of public debate, it emerged Kwaw Worsemao Blay, had submitted a bid for the hotel. Questions were subsequently raised about the source of the funds behind his bid. Once again, it was Freddie Blay who appeared on Joy FM to defend his son and respond to the concerns surrounding the transaction.
Now, years later, the same pattern appears to be unfolding.
Freddie Blay is once again publicly defending his son, alleging that the demolition of the Polo Beach Club was politically motivated and ordered by President John Dramani Mahama.
The allegations have also received considerable attention on Joy FM, with Samson Lardi appearing to champion the case. From the manner in which Multimedia’s platforms have pursued and amplified the issue involving Kwaw Worsemao Blay, one could be forgiven for wondering whether Samson Lardi is the family’s legal counsel.
This raises broader questions about the media house’s interest in the matter. Is this simply journalism pursuing a legitimate public-interest issue, or has Multimedia become an advocate for one side of the controversy?
A responsible media organisation has a duty to give all sides of a contentious story an opportunity to respond. If allegations are being made against National Security and the government, then National Security should be contacted for its response. Similarly, given the location and ownership issues surrounding the beachfront development, SSNIT, which has an interest in the Labadi Beach Hotel, should also be given the opportunity to explain its position.
The media must not simply become a platform for one side of a dispute, particularly where there are competing claims about ownership, legality and the circumstances surrounding a demolition.
There is also an unfortunate irony in Freddie Blay’s current posture. He himself has reportedly been embroiled in a separate demolition dispute at Kitase and was remanded into police custody by the Akropong Circuit Court, with the case involving allegations that he ordered the demolition of a house under construction on disputed land.
Against this background, his decision to accuse the government of political victimisation in connection with his son’s facility deserves closer scrutiny, rather than unquestioning acceptance.
The issue is not whether Kwame Blay should be defended. Every citizen is entitled to legal and public representation where necessary. The question is whether an adult businessman should have his father consistently serve as his public spokesperson whenever controversies involving his business interests arise.
More importantly, the media must ask the difficult questions, seek responses from all parties and allow the facts. not personal relationships to determine the narrative.
If Freddie Blay believes the demolition of the Polo Beach Club was unlawful or politically motivated, then the appropriate authorities should be challenged to provide the evidence and justification for their actions.
But the public deserves to hear from Kwame Blay himself, the owner of the facility, as well as from the authorities whose actions are being challenged.
Anything less risks turning a legitimate public-interest issue into yet another partisan political spectacle.
