Manufacturing Consent? A Critical Look at Global InfoAnalytics’ December Polls

Global InfoAnalytics, under the leadership of Mussa Dankwah, has become an increasingly prominent actor in Ghana’s public opinion landscape, primarily through the frequency and visibility of its polling results. In December alone, the firm released multiple surveys, culminating in a headline poll that claims broad public satisfaction with the ruling government and majority support for proposals by the Constitutional Review Committee to extend the presidential term to five years. Given the media's growing reliance on these findings, careful, methodologically grounded scrutiny is both necessary and overdue.

According to the poll’s principal investigator, the survey sampled 13,495 respondents between December 1 and 21 using three modes of data collection: telephone interviews (2,294 respondents), online engagement (2,699 respondents), and face-to-face interviews (8,501 respondents) (https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BuxAjMGwV/?mibextid=wwXIfr). However, the methodological disclosure accompanying these figures is insufficient. There is no clarification on whether the sample was proportionally distributed across Ghana’s 16 regions or concentrated in particular localities. In the absence of such information, it is difficult to assess the national representativeness of the findings or the validity of the inferences drawn from them.

More fundamentally, serious temporal inconsistencies arise in the questionnaire itself. One of the central indicators in the poll is public support for the Constitutional Review Committee’s recommendations regarding a 5-year presidential term. Yet the committee’s report was formally presented on 22 December, after the stated data collection period had closed. At that time, the report had not undergone sustained public debate and had limited circulation. This raises a critical question: how were respondents sufficiently informed to express opinions on a specific proposal for a presidential term extension when the report was not publicly available? Unless the survey instrument relied on speculative or leading descriptions of the proposal, or respondents were exposed to the document before its official release, the validity of this item is questionable. Without explicit clarification, the results risk misrepresenting both public awareness and public opinion.

Equally problematic is the lack of transparency about the online and telephone components of the survey. The poll does not specify which digital platforms were used to reach the 2,699 online respondents, nor does it explain how regional balance, demographic diversity, or duplication control were ensured in those responses. In a context where access to social media varies significantly by region, age, education, and urban–rural location, such omissions are not trivial. Similarly, the telephone survey raises concerns about sampling frames and access. The source of the contact database, the sampling technique employed, and the safeguards against partisan or institutional bias are left unexplained. These details are essential if the poll is to meet the minimum standards of survey research credibility.

This critique is not an attempt to dismiss polling as a tool for democratic engagement. On the contrary, credible polls can enrich public discourse and inform policy debates. However, when polls are presented as authoritative and amplified by the media without rigorous scrutiny, they risk distorting rather than reflecting public opinion. The absence of competing polls or independent verification further heightens this risk, leaving no basis for triangulation or comparative assessment. In a fragile democracy, uncritical consumption of methodologically opaque polling data can have serious consequences. The Media, in particular, have a responsibility to demand complete methodological transparency before disseminating such findings. Without this scrutiny, polling risks becoming an instrument of political legitimation rather than an objective measure of public sentiment. If Global InfoAnalytics seeks credibility commensurate with its influence, it must subject its methods to the same level of public examination as the conclusions it so confidently promotes.

Isaac Ofori
Tutor, Winneba Senior High School.
Social Activist and Human Rights Advocate
[email protected]