Sammy Gyamfi’s Lawyer Explains Why Afenyo-Markin’s GH¢15m Suit Was Dismissed

Lawyers for Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi have successfully challenged the legal validity of a GH¢15 million defamation suit filed against him by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin, resulting in the High Court striking out the case.

The High Court’s General Jurisdiction 1 division ruled on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, that the writ of summons filed by Mr Afenyo-Markin was defective because it failed to meet mandatory procedural requirements governing defamation actions.

The dispute arose from public exchanges between the two over reported losses of US$1.7 billion associated with the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025. Mr Gyamfi had accused the Minority Leader of attempted extortion, allegations Mr Afenyo-Markin rejected before initiating the GH¢15 million lawsuit.

According to the legal arguments advanced by Mr Gyamfi’s lawyers, the writ did not contain sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication as required under Order 57 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).

The court agreed that the requirement was mandatory and not merely a technical formality. It held that the particulars must be clearly endorsed on the writ to enable the allegedly defamatory publication to be identified.

The judge also rejected the argument that details contained in the statement of claim could remedy the defect. In distinguishing an earlier case, Owusu Domena v Amoh, the court noted that Mr Gyamfi’s lawyers had promptly challenged the writ rather than proceeding with the case without objection.

The court subsequently set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim filed on August 24, 2026, with no order as to costs.

However, the ruling does not establish whether the statements at the centre of the dispute were defamatory. Rather, it addresses the procedural validity of the lawsuit.

The decision brings the proceedings under the defective writ to an end, while leaving the substantive allegations unresolved.