Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Introduction

On August 10, 2025, the Office of the Presidential Envoy for Interfaith and Ecumenical Relations asked ecumenical heads to channel any prophecy or spiritual insight with national implications (for example, about the president, vice president, national security, or public stability) to the office so it could be reviewed before being publicised. 

The move followed a wave of viral video prophecies after the 6 August military helicopter crash that killed eight people, including two ministers. The government says the measure prevents panic and enables urgent review and response.  However, religious bodies and commentators have questioned the risks of the scope, timing, and civil liberties.

What the directive says

• The Office (signed by Elvis Afriyie Ankrah, Presidential Envoy for Interfaith and Ecumenical Relations) asked “ecumenical heads” to tell prophets and clergy under their oversight to submit prophecies or spiritual insights of national significance (especially those touching on high-profile political leaders, governance, national security or public stability) to the Envoy’s office for urgent review and possible escalation. The Office supplied a dedicated WhatsApp line and an email for submissions. 

Why the government says it did this (context)

• The request came after the August 6, 2025, Ghana Air Force helicopter crash that killed eight people (including the Minister of Defence and the Environment Minister). The collision produced many viral social-media posts and a flurry of public prophecies and “visions” that, officials say, created fear and panic online. Government officials argue that prophecies claiming imminent national harm (e.g., “an aircraft will crash”) can be matters of public safety or national security and therefore deserve a channel for verification and, if needed, a timely response.

Meth­odist Church Leader’s Take: “Prophecies Must Build, Not Break”

The Most Rev. Dr. Paul Kwabena Boafo, Presiding Bishop of the Methodist Church of Ghana, told DUBAWA that the directive is both timely and, at its core, respectful.

He expressed deep sympathy for the bereaved, recalling how he knew one of the victims, and emphasised that Ghana is a collective family in grief.

He noted that after the tragedy, social media became flooded with “visions and prophecies,” many of which may be “insensitive … not fit for people grieving.” For him, the directive represents a way to protect the dignity of both the bereaved and the prophetic gift.

Bishop Boafo brought biblical wisdom into the conversation, reminding readers of the apostle Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 14:29: “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.” He said, “Review is scriptural. We should ask: Does it align with Scripture? Does it build up and encourage? Will it bear good fruit?” In other words, prophecy isn’t banned—but it should be weighed carefully, especially when aired publicly.

He also raised concerns about the scope of the review mechanism. The current directive targets national leaders, but he argued it should extend to all levels to preserve the dignity of every individual “because every person bears the image of God.”

He added, “Faith and reason go together… We must not create confusion. True prophets build up. False prophets sow chaos.”

Is this new? Who is Elvis Afriyie Ankrah, and what power does he have?

• Multiple media outlets identified Elvis Afriyie Ankrah as the Presidential Envoy for Interfaith and Ecumenical Relations and carried the August 10 statement on behalf of the Presidency. The role is described in reporting as a presidential appointment tasked with liaising between the Presidency and religious leaders to promote coordination on spiritual matters; his office issued the recent statement. Reports indicate the office has set up a contact email/WhatsApp for this purpose. The press coverage does not point to a statutory “prophecy regulator” — this is an executive-house appointment and an administrative mechanism, not a new criminal law.

DUBAWA also spoke to Elvis Afriyie Ankrah, the newly appointed Presidential Coordinator for Religious Affairs, who revealed that he received his appointment letter just three weeks ago. He explained that while Ghana has “some of the most seasoned men and women of God”, the recent proliferation of alarming prophecies—particularly on social media platforms like TikTok—has been causing fear and panic among the public.

Although Elvis Afriyie claimed to have received his appointment letter three weeks ago, the public learnt of the directive only after the fatal helicopter crash. The delay has prompted questions about whether the move is a long-planned measure or a reaction to the tragedy. 

In many cases, he said, religious leaders who claim to receive such prophecies complain they cannot reach government officials to verify or relay their concerns.

To address this, his office has set up a dedicated WhatsApp number and email address for submitting prophecies that “border on the security of the state.”

Ankrah clarified that the platform is not for everyday church prophecies but for messages concerning national security and leaders’ safety.

He noted that these submissions will be reviewed in collaboration with experienced figures from Christian, Muslim, and traditional religious communities, and appropriate actions—such as direct meetings or further assessment—will be taken where necessary.

“Even if there’s a prophecy, the Bible says God reveals to redeem,” he told DUBAWA, adding that prayer remains central to any response. The ultimate goal, he stressed, is to bring “order and sanity” while ensuring that genuine concerns reach the appropriate authorities.

Has prophecy caused problems before? 

Prophetic claims in Ghana have sometimes produced real social consequences; the record is mixed — some predictions were widely publicised and did not come true, while others were later reported to have matched events.

• Rev Isaac Owusu-Bempah (Dec 31, 2018) — famously prophesied the deaths of the National Chief Imam and the then-vice president; the prediction caused a strong public reaction and, at one point, mobs attacked the pastor’s church. That prophecy did not come to pass.
  
• Prophet Samuel Henry (“Roja”) (Jan 10, 2025) — publicly predicted the death of the Asante Mamponghene, Daasebre Osei Bonsu II; the chief died in April 2025, and the media noted the prophecy’s earlier public posting.
  
• Regal Prophet Bismark Nana Boateng (June 2025) — posted a vision about musician Daddy Lumba in June; Daddy Lumba later died in late July 2025, and the media noted the earlier post. Again: timing and exact wording matter.
  

These examples show both false predictions and ones that aligned with later events — a key reason why the government says it needs a way to triage and verify claims that could affect public order.

Conclusion

The government’s move sits at the intersection of faith, freedom of speech, and national security. Supporters argue it offers a structured, respectful way to handle sensitive spiritual claims that might otherwise spiral into public panic. Critics worry it could blur the line between church and state, raising questions about who decides which “visions” merit action. What’s clear is that in a country where prophecy is both a cultural and religious staple, any system for reviewing it will need to tread carefully—balancing the right to speak with the responsibility to safeguard public order.