Afenyo-Markin’s Lawyers Reject Claims Over Service of Writ on Sammy Gyamfi

Lawyers for Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin have rejected claims surrounding the service of a defamation writ on GoldBod Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi, insisting that the legal process was properly initiated and that attempts were made to serve the defendant.

In a press statement dated August 29, 2026, the legal team, Osahene Alexander Ofosu-Ampong & Associates, said it had been duly instructed to represent Afenyo-Markin in the matter.

The lawyers described claims circulating about the service of the writ as “false” and misleading, and provided a timeline of events to clarify the circumstances surrounding the case.

According to the lawyers, the writ was filed at the High Court on August 24, 2026.

They said that on August 26, a law firm representing Sammy Gyamfi wrote to the Registrar of the High Court, indicating that an application had been filed seeking leave to serve the writ outside the jurisdiction.

The lawyers further stated that on August 27, Gyamfi’s legal representatives returned the writ to the court registry, explaining that their client had changed his mind about accepting service.

The Afenyo-Markin legal team disputed the account surrounding the returned writ.

According to the statement, following the development, a court bailiff attempted to personally serve Sammy Gyamfi at his office.

The lawyers alleged that Gyamfi declined to accept the court documents, prompting the bailiff to formally record the refusal in accordance with the applicable court procedure.

They maintained that the refusal to physically accept the writ did not, in itself, invalidate the service process.

The legal team also referred to Order 7, Rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) in support of its service position.

They argued that the rules provide mechanisms for serving a writ on a defendant, including leaving a copy with the defendant or, in circumstances prescribed by the rules, with an adult person residing with the defendant.

The lawyers said the relevant correspondence and the bailiff’s official report provide documentary evidence of the steps taken to effect service.

They therefore rejected suggestions that the writ had not been properly pursued or that the plaintiff’s legal team had failed to take the necessary procedural steps.

Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers also accused unnamed individuals of circulating what they described as a misleading narrative about the circumstances surrounding the attempted service.

They urged the public to rely on the official court records and the bailiff’s report rather than competing accounts being circulated outside the courtroom.

The legal team reiterated that Afenyo-Markin remains committed to pursuing the matter through the judicial process and allowing the courts to determine the issues before them.

The dispute over service has added another layer to the high-profile legal battle involving Afenyo-Markin and Sammy Gyamfi, with the circumstances surrounding the delivery and acceptance of the writ now becoming a subject of public discussion.

For now, Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers maintain that the writ was properly filed, that reasonable steps were taken to serve Sammy Gyamfi, and that the bailiff’s official report provides a record of what occurred during the attempted personal service.