The undercover documentary which aired on Monday, October 7, exposed some West African university lecturers who sexually harass students in exchange for favours.
Prof Gyampo and fellow lecturer Dr Paul Kwame Butakor at the University of Ghana were captured in the documentary.
But Van Vicker says ‘edited visuals can be deceptive’ – suggesting that the ‘raw’ footage can offer more grounds for judging the case.
He took to Instagram on Wednesday, October 9, to condemn lecturers for ask for sex for grades but quickly jumped into Gyampo’s defence.
“We are not privy to a lot of information due to the fact that the visuals were edited. We are not privy to the raw footages or we were not there to see how it actually rolled out,” he stated.
He asked the BBC to come out with the raw footage to ascertain their claim.
Vicker shared a snippet of the documentary which captures Gyampo, and captioned: “I am absolutely disgusted by the behaviour of lecturers who abuse their power by manipulating students in exchange of sexual favours. Total irritation. My daughter shall enrol in a tertiary institution in a couple of years and I will be heartbroken if this behaviour is still prevalent. I am uprightly elated that UG has taken the appropriate stans in this matter. I do not condone the lecturers action however, from a film makers perspective editing can work a lot of magic. What do I mean? Let me elucidate here; if I were a lecturer and asked my female student to come by my house (when all folks are home including wife) or to rendezvous with me (publicly) in all genuineness to help this student I could be implicated as making advances for sexual favours. How? So say the BBC documentary is out as it is and there u happen to see my visual of me saying to that particular female (the example I just sited); "come by my house". You dont see her actually go to my house or wherever but I could be implicated as perhaps one of those lecturers who engage in such activities; till I am exonerated. By which time my name would have already been dragged through the mud. So what I am saying is we are not privy to a lot of information due to the fact that the visuals WERE EDITED. We are not privy to the RAW FOOTAGES or we were NOT THERE to see how it ACTUALLY ROLLED OUT. So on that premise would it be logical to assume that the said female could have professed her love to the lecturer or seduced him in order for him to behave the way he did? REMEMBER SOME VISUALS WERE NOT RECORDED OR WERE EDITED OUT? For emphasis let me repeat, I have two girls who are near going to uni and I will at no time foster such licentiousness by a lecturer. Essentially what I am saying is edited visuals can be deceptive hence PROPER investigations should be conducted in order to substantiate culpability.”