United Party Petitions State Institutions Over Alleged $1m Extortion Claim Against Afenyo-Markin

The United Party has petitioned key state institutions to investigate allegations that Minority Leader in Parliament, Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin, attempted to obtain US$1 million from Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer, Sammy Gyamfi.

The petition, dated August 23, 2026, was jointly signed by Solomon Owusu, Director of Communications and Spokesperson of the United Party, and Andrew Appiah-Danquah, Director of Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It was addressed to the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, the Special Prosecutor, the Speaker of Parliament, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), the Inspector-General of Police and the Director-General of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID).

The petition, titled “Joint Petition for the Investigation of Allegations of Attempted Extortion, Corruption, Abuse of Public Office and Related Conduct Involving the Minority Leader of Parliament,” said the allegations were serious enough to warrant an independent and evidence-based investigation.

According to the petitioners, the allegations arose from comments made by Mr Gyamfi during the Government Accountability Series on August 19, 2026, where he responded to claims made by Afenyo-Markin concerning the operations and financial position of GoldBod.

The petition said Mr Gyamfi, towards the end of his statement, alleged that individuals could engage in what he described as a calculated campaign of reputational attacks by making false allegations against their targets, with the expectation that the targets would eventually submit to what he called “compulsory arbitration” for financial benefit.

It further stated that Eric Adjei, Chief Executive Officer of the National Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (NEIP) and a publicly known associate of Sammy Gyamfi, subsequently made additional allegations against Afenyo-Markin.

Mr Adjei was alleged to have accused the Minority Leader of engaging in extortionist conduct and of establishing or being associated with a team that allegedly used requests under the Right to Information Act to obtain information from public institutions before persons connected to the alleged operation assumed the role of “negotiators.”

The petitioners said it had subsequently been alleged and publicly attributed directly to Sammy Gyamfi that Afenyo-Markin attempted to demand or obtain US$1 million from him.

They said the cumulative effect of the allegations suggested that the alleged demand may have been connected to actual or threatened reputational attacks, adverse publicity, political pressure, threatened official or parliamentary action, or an offer to discontinue or moderate such conduct in exchange for payment.

However, the United Party stressed that it did not possess the communications, recordings, electronic messages or other evidence upon which the allegations were based and therefore could not determine whether the claims were true.

The petitioners argued that allegations of such magnitude, particularly when made publicly by persons holding high public office and concerning a serving parliamentary leader, should not simply be dismissed as ordinary political rhetoric.

They said that if the allegations were proven, they could point to an attempt to use political influence, parliamentary standing, access to information or threats to a person’s reputation to extract a substantial private financial benefit.

Conversely, if the allegations were false or could not be substantiated, the petitioners said they would constitute a serious attack on the reputation of Afenyo-Markin and the integrity of Parliament.

The United Party cited several constitutional and legal provisions in support of its call for an investigation.

It referred to Article 1(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which provides that sovereignty resides in the people of Ghana and that governmental powers are exercised in their name and for their welfare.

The petitioners argued that public power is therefore fiduciary and should not be transformed into a tool for private enrichment, political retaliation or coercion.

They also cited Article 35(8), which places an obligation on the State to take steps to eradicate corrupt practices and abuse of power, as well as Article 41(f), which requires citizens to protect public property and expose and combat the misuse and waste of public funds and property.

The petition further cited Article 218 of the Constitution and Section 7 of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice Act, 1993 (Act 456), saying these provisions empower CHRAJ to investigate complaints involving corruption, abuse of power and unfair treatment by public officers.

It also referenced the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act, 2017 (Act 959), which provides an institutional framework for investigating and prosecuting certain corruption and corruption-related offences involving public officers and politically exposed persons.

The petitioners also pointed to the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), particularly Sections 17, 18 and 151.

They argued that Section 151 criminalises obtaining property through threats, while Section 17 recognises threats of libel or slander and an offer to refrain from carrying out such threats.

The petition said that if evidence established that a demand for money was accompanied by an express or implied threat to publish, repeat or intensify damaging allegations, or an offer to stop such conduct in exchange for payment, the conduct could potentially fall within the legal definition of extortion.

Where a demand and qualifying threat were made but no money or property was obtained because the intended victim refused to pay, the petition said Section 18 could potentially apply to an attempted extortion offence.

The petition also said Sections 239 to 247 of Act 29 could become relevant if the alleged demand was made under the colour of public office or involved the exercise or threatened exercise of parliamentary or official authority.

Sections 20 and 23, it added, could also become relevant if an intermediary, political operative or other person intentionally assisted or facilitated the alleged conduct.

The United Party emphasised that a request for money by itself does not necessarily amount to extortion.

According to the petition, investigators must determine whether the alleged demand was accompanied by an express or implied threat, or an offer to stop reputational, prosecutorial, parliamentary, political or other harmful conduct in exchange for payment.

The petitioners said this could not responsibly be determined through press conferences, radio discussions or partisan exchanges, but required examination of witnesses, communications, recordings, electronic data and the circumstances surrounding the allegations.

The petition called on investigators to invite Sammy Gyamfi to provide a comprehensive formal statement detailing the alleged demand, including the amount involved, date and location, the person who allegedly communicated it, the words used, what was demanded in return and any subsequent developments.

Eric Adjei, it said, should also be invited to explain whether his allegations were based on firsthand knowledge, information received from Gyamfi, documentary or electronic evidence, communications with an intermediary or another identifiable source.

Afenyo-Markin, the petition said, should be given the opportunity to respond fully and should be accorded the presumption of innocence and all constitutional protections.

The petitioners further called for any alleged intermediary, negotiator, agent, representative or member of an alleged RTI-related team to be identified and interviewed.

Investigators, they said, should establish whether such persons acted independently or with the authority, knowledge, instruction, approval or subsequent ratification of Afenyo-Markin or anyone else.

They also asked investigators to determine whether the alleged demand was for US$1 million, GH¢10 million or another amount or valuable consideration, and whether it was linked to silence, withdrawal or non-publication of allegations, cessation of political attacks, restraint in parliamentary action, favourable treatment, settlement or “compulsory arbitration.”

They called for investigators to establish whether any payment, part-payment, promise, settlement proposal, financial instruction, benefit or other consideration was made, offered, discussed or contemplated.

The petition asked the Attorney-General and relevant investigative institutions to determine whether the facts ultimately established disclosed attempted extortion, completed extortion, corruption, abuse of public office, conspiracy, abetment or any other offence under Ghanaian law.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor was asked to determine whether the allegations fell within its jurisdiction as corruption or a corruption-related offence involving a public officer or politically exposed person.

CHRAJ was urged to investigate whether the alleged conduct amounted to corruption, abuse of power or a breach of the constitutional code of conduct for public officers.

The IGP and CID Director-General were also asked to open a criminal inquiry into the alleged monetary demand, any accompanying threat and the possible involvement of intermediaries or associates.

The petition also asked the Speaker of Parliament to refer any matter concerning the conduct, dignity and integrity of Parliament to the appropriate parliamentary mechanism without interfering with an independent criminal investigation.

It further called for coordination among the relevant institutions where necessary, while maintaining their constitutional and statutory independence.

If sufficient evidence is established, the petitioners want appropriate criminal, disciplinary, parliamentary, civil recovery or other proceedings commenced without fear, favour or partisan consideration.

Petitioners call for fair outcome

The United Party said that if the allegations could not be substantiated after a proper investigation, that conclusion should also be clearly communicated to protect public discourse and the reputation of anyone who may have been wrongly accused.

The petitioners said their concern went beyond the individuals and political parties involved, arguing that Ghana’s constitutional democracy could be undermined if political or public authority were used as an instrument for private bargaining.

They also warned that failing to investigate serious allegations of criminality could encourage impunity if the allegations were true, while allowing unsubstantiated accusations to stand could promote character assassination if they were false.

In its final request, the United Party called for the recipient institutions to acknowledge the petition, assign it an official reference number, commence a prompt and independent preliminary inquiry, obtain formal statements from Sammy Gyamfi and Eric Adjei, invite Afenyo-Markin to respond, identify all alleged intermediaries and preserve relevant electronic, documentary, audiovisual and financial evidence.

The petition also urged the institutions to determine whether public office, parliamentary position or institutional authority was allegedly used as leverage and, where the allegations are substantiated, institute the appropriate proceedings.

The petitioners stressed that they were not asserting that criminal liability had already been established.

They said their request was simply for those who had made serious and specific allegations to place their evidence before competent state institutions and for Afenyo-Markin to be given a fair opportunity to respond.

They concluded by calling for urgent intervention and written communication on the steps taken in response to the petition.

The petition was signed by Solomon Owusu, Director of Communications and Spokesperson of the United Party, and Andrew Appiah-Danquah, Director of Legal and Constitutional Affairs of the party. Attachments listed with the petition include excerpts of Sammy Gyamfi’s August 19 statement, audiovisual recordings or transcripts of Eric Adjei’s statements, material containing the alleged US$1 million demand, and any additional electronic, documentary or witness evidence available to the petitioners.

Petition on allegations of extortion made by Sammy Gyamfi against Afenyo Markin