The planning committee inaugurated to oversee the celebration of the [email protected] anniversary has debunked allegations that the logo was plagiarised.
President Nana Addo had explained that the [email protected] logo symbolized “the diversity and unity of our country and the aspirations of the Ghanaian people for a dignified and prosperous future.”
Meanwhile a quick image search of the logo on the Internet shows an exact image of the Ghana @ 60 logo but with different colours.
The logo appears to have been used by UNESCO as one of their International Festival Of Cultural Diversity celebrations.
However, addressing journalists at the first media briefing of the committee, the chairman of the media sub-committee, Jefferson Sackey, revealed that the logo was an original design which best resonated with the theme of the celebration dubbed 'Mobilising for Ghana's Future'.
“It was a transparent process, people submitted their artworks and we ensured that we saw the process with which they were going through in designing their logos. I can tell you for a fact that we received over a hundred of them. What the sub-committee did was to sit down and select 20 of them and present it to the National Planning Committee. At the National Planning Committee, they went ahead and selected five of the logos and then we actually had to submit the five to experts in the design industry and media industry for them to see if they can link the theme to what they have presented. The issue of plagiarism is something that comes to us as a surprise,” he said.
He added that the team has done its research and the media should do their independent research to verify claims of any plagiarism.
Mr. Sackey explained that the logo was designed by one Emmanuel Addo, a graduate student at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology and that his design, according to the judgement of the committee, best resonated with the theme of the celebration.
In his view, the alternate logo circulating within the media landscape was created by some people seeking to undermine the credibility of the planning committee.