Ghana High Court: Afenyo-Markin Sammy Gyamfi Defamation Suit Dismissal

• The Ghana High Court dismissed a GH¢15 million defamation suit filed by Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Sammy Gyamfi.
• The court ruled the writ was "incurably defective and incompetent," unable to properly invoke its jurisdiction.
• Legal practitioner Martin Kpebu advised Afenyo-Markin against refiling the case, advocating for an amicable resolution.
• Kpebu warned that continued political litigation could undermine cooperation between government and opposition MPs.
• The dismissal was on procedural grounds and did not determine whether the original statements were defamatory.

This outcome underscores a vital lesson for litigators in Ghana: the absolute necessity of ensuring that all legal instruments are procedurally sound and competent to properly engage the judicial system.

The Ghana High Court recently dismissed a significant GH¢15 million defamation lawsuit filed by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Sammy Gyamfi, the Chief Executive Officer of Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod). This judicial action effectively brought an end to the proceedings initiated by Mr. Afenyo-Markin, who had sought damages for alleged reputational harm. The lawsuit, which also named Multimedia Group Limited as a defendant, stemmed from accusations of extortion leveled against the Minority Leader.

These allegations emerged amidst a broader controversy surrounding GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme. Mr. Afenyo-Markin publicly announced his intention to sue in Parliament on August 24, 2026, vehemently denying the claims and asserting that they were false and designed to damage his standing. The legal process itself encountered procedural disagreements, notably concerning the service of the writ. While Mr. Gyamfi’s legal representatives, Ayine & Partners, confirmed their authorization to accept court documents, Mr. Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers later maintained that service had been duly completed, refuting any suggestions that their client was evading the process.

The High Court’s General Jurisdiction 1 delivered its ruling on Wednesday, October 14, determining that the writ filed in the Alexander Afenyo-Markin GH¢15 million lawsuit was "incurably defective and incompetent." This critical finding meant that the legal document was fundamentally flawed and therefore incapable of properly invoking the court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the court struck out the Afenyo-Markin Sammy Gyamfi defamation suit dismissal, concluding the proceedings on technical grounds.

In reaching its decision, the court referenced established legal principles, drawing upon precedents such as Coleman v Newmont Ghana regarding applicable procedural rules, and Owusu Domena concerning the necessity of raising objections promptly. It is crucial to note that while the ruling terminated the case under the defective writ, it did not delve into the substantive matter of whether the statements complained of were, in fact, defamatory. This outcome underscores a vital lesson for litigators in Ghana: the absolute necessity of ensuring that all legal instruments are procedurally sound and competent to properly engage the judicial system.

Following the Ghana High Court defective writ ruling, private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu offered significant legal advice litigation, urging Mr. Afenyo-Markin not to pursue further legal action in this specific dispute. Speaking on JoyFM’s Top Story on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, Mr. Kpebu advocated for an amicable resolution political litigation, emphasizing that continued legal battles could detrimentally affect cooperation between the government and opposition Members of Parliament. He highlighted that with the writ dismissed, there is no longer a pending case to restrict public discussion of the issues, though he cautioned that any new defamatory statements made during such discussions could still expose individuals to fresh legal action.

Mr. Kpebu's counsel extends beyond the immediate case, touching upon the broader implications of such high-profile political litigation. He argued that these types of lawsuits can strain essential relations between governing and opposition lawmakers, even as both factions continue to engage in public business despite their political differences. He pointed out that it is common practice in Ghana for successive governments to support opposition MPs through various means, including development projects in their constituencies, underscoring the importance of maintaining constructive engagement. This perspective suggests that while legal recourse is available, the strategic implications of continued litigation, particularly in politically sensitive matters, should be carefully weighed against the potential for an amicable resolution and its impact on broader stakeholder relations.

This case serves as a critical reminder for litigators in Ghana regarding the absolute necessity of ensuring writs are procedurally sound and competent to invoke the court's jurisdiction, as demonstrated by the dismissal of a high-value defamation suit on technical grounds. Lawyers should advise clients on the strategic implications of continued litigation versus amicable resolution, especially in politically sensitive matters, considering potential impacts on broader stakeholder relations.

Source: Original reporting via Prince Adu-Owusu.