In Ghana’s fast-evolving entrepreneurship ecosystem, where business pitch competitions have become a gateway to funding, visibility, and survival for young innovators, a quieter form of exclusion is emerging. It is not always written in policy, nor openly acknowledged in selection criteria. Yet for individuals who stammer, the structure of competitive pitching itself often becomes a barrier that determines who gets heard and who is left behind.
This issue, which sits at the intersection of disability inclusion, communication accessibility, and economic opportunity, is increasingly drawing attention from disability advocates who warn that innovation ecosystems risk excluding talent not because of weak ideas, but because of how those ideas must be verbally delivered under pressure.
Disability rights advocate Yaw Ofori-Debra, who has spent decades working on inclusion policy and currently serves as Second Vice President of the World Blind Union, believes the challenge is rooted not only in physical accessibility but in how society defines performance and communication.
Speaking during an engagement session with The High Street Journal on disability inclusion and participation, Ofori-Debra reflected on the growing concern around participation barriers in competitive spaces such as pitch competitions, job interviews, and public selection panels.
For individuals who stammer, he noted, the challenge is compounded by time pressure, audience scrutiny, and expectations of fluency that do not account for speech diversity.
“For me, I think a possible way out is to allow them to give written answers,” he said. “Or when they are before interview panels, either you have patience for them or you give them written interviews.”
His perspective reflects a broader concern within disability advocacy circles that assessment systems are often designed around a narrow definition of communication ability, which prioritises speed and fluency over clarity of thought and innovation.
Ofori-Debra further explained that even when opportunities exist, the environment in which they are delivered can determine outcomes. He observed that many individuals with speech differences experience reduced tolerance in high-pressure environments, particularly when timing and public speaking are central to evaluation.
“They have very little patience for them,” he noted. “They don’t even tolerate the breaks in speech. So it is very worrying. It is very frustrating for them.” He added.
In Ghana’s entrepreneurial landscape, pitch competitions have become a dominant model for selecting startups for funding and incubation. These platforms typically require participants to present business ideas within strict time limits before panels of investors, accelerators, or judges. While effective for efficiency, advocates argue that this format may unintentionally disadvantage individuals whose communication styles do not align with rapid verbal delivery.
The concern is not hypothetical. Across disability advocacy discussions, stammering is increasingly recognised as a communication difference that can affect participation in formal speaking environments, especially when pressure and evaluation are combined. Yet, in most business development programmes, accommodations such as written pitching, extended time allowances, or alternative presentation formats remain limited.
Yaw Ofori-Debra emphasised that inclusion does not necessarily require lowering standards, but rather broadening the methods used to assess competence.
If properly structured, he argued, pitch competitions could incorporate written submissions alongside oral presentations, or allow hybrid models where judges assess business logic independently of speech fluency. Such adjustments, he suggested, would ensure that innovative ideas are not lost due to communication barriers.
His reflections come at a time when Ghana continues to expand its entrepreneurship support ecosystem through government agencies, private accelerators, and development partnerships. These initiatives are designed to address youth unemployment and stimulate economic growth by funding innovation and small business development. However, disability advocates caution that without intentional inclusion measures, segments of the population may remain structurally excluded from these opportunities.
The issue also connects to broader findings from global labour and development institutions, which consistently highlight that exclusion from economic participation reduces national productivity and limits innovation potential. While these studies often focus on physical disability or employment access, advocates argue that communication-based exclusion deserves similar attention, particularly in knowledge-driven economies.
For individuals who stammer, the consequences extend beyond competition rooms. Limited participation in pitch platforms can mean reduced access to funding, mentorship, and investor networks, which are critical for business survival in the early stages. Over time, this can shape who gets to scale ideas into enterprises and who remains outside formal economic systems.
In reflecting on possible solutions, Ofori-Debra pointed not only to structural adjustments but also to targeted support systems, including speech training interventions that have shown success in improving communication confidence for some individuals.
He also underscored the importance of patience and institutional awareness in evaluation settings, noting that the quality of an idea should not be overshadowed by the pace of its delivery.
The implications of this conversation extend beyond disability advocacy into the design of Ghana’s innovation economy itself. If pitch competitions remain the primary gateway to opportunity, then the rules governing participation effectively shape who is allowed into the economic mainstream.
As Ghana continues to position entrepreneurship as a pillar of economic transformation, advocates argue that inclusion must move beyond physical accessibility into communication equity. Without such reforms, they warn, the country risks building an innovation ecosystem that is fast, competitive, and dynamic, yet quietly selective in ways that exclude voices that speak differently.
In the end, the question is not whether persons who stammer can contribute to Ghana’s economic future. The evidence suggests they already do, through ideas, skills, and lived experience. The question is whether Ghana’s opportunity systems are designed to hear them.
