The High Court in Accra on Wednesday, October 14, 2026, threw out the GH¢15 million defamation suit filed by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin against Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Sammy Gyamfi, ruling that the writ did not meet the procedural rules for libel cases.
The court set aside the writ of summons and statement of claim, which were filed on August 24, 2026, and made no order as to costs.
The suit, which also named Multimedia Group Limited, the parent company of JoyNews, as a defendant, followed comments in which Mr Gyamfi allegedly described the Effutu MP as an “extortionist” on JoyNews’ Newsfile programme.
The ruling was delivered by the High Court’s General Jurisdiction 1 division. It does not decide whether the statements complained about were defamatory.
Why the High Court dismissed Afenyo-Markin’s defamation suit
Lawyers for Mr Gyamfi entered a conditional appearance and applied to set aside the writ, arguing that it did not comply with the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
The court agreed. It held that Order 57 Rule 2 requires a writ in a libel action to carry sufficient particulars of the publication complained about, so that it can be identified.
According to Citi Newsroom, the court described this as “not a mere technicality but a specific procedural obligation governing defamation proceedings.” Asaase Radio and YEN reported that the court found the writ “incurably defective and incompetent.”
Court relied on Supreme Court precedent
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in the consolidated Newmont cases (cited in reports as Alex Onuma and others v Newmont and Coleman v Newmont), which stressed strict compliance with Order 57 Rules 2 and 3(1).
It also distinguished the case of Owusu Domena v Amoh. In that case, the defect in the writ was cured because the defendant did not object and took full part in the proceedings.
In this case, the court noted, Mr Gyamfi’s lawyers entered a conditional appearance and challenged the writ promptly. General provisions of the rules could not be used to excuse non-compliance with the specific requirements for defamation cases.
What Afenyo-Markin was seeking in the GH¢15m suit
The Minority Leader said the “extortionist” remarks were false and damaged his reputation as a lawyer, politician and public figure. His reliefs included:
- GH¢15 million in damages
- A full retraction and an unconditional public apology
- An injunction against further publication of the words, or statements with a similar meaning
- Broadcast of the retraction and apology on JoyNews and on the platforms where the original statements spread, with substantially the same prominence
Background: the US$1.7bn gold programme dispute
The case grew out of public exchanges over alleged losses of US$1.7 billion linked to the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025.
Mr Afenyo-Markin raised concerns about the losses. Mr Gyamfi disputed his claims and accused him of attempted extortion. GhanaTrends earlier reported on how Sammy Gyamfi fired back over the GoldBod US$1.7bn loss claims.
Mr Afenyo-Markin announced the suit in Parliament on August 24. Mr Gyamfi later authorised his lawyers, Ayine & Partners, to accept service of the writ.
Sammy Gyamfi’s lawyer explains the ruling
Counsel for Mr Gyamfi, Seth Anyaaba, told GhanaWeb that the writ failed because it did not include the alleged defamatory statement, as required under Order 57 Rule 2.
He said the defence had argued that “the writ… did not comply with the rules of court, particularly Order 57 Rule 2.”
What the ruling means for Afenyo-Markin and Sammy Gyamfi
For Mr Gyamfi and Multimedia Group, the ruling ends the current case without a trial. Neither defendant was found liable, and no costs were awarded against the Minority Leader.
For Mr Afenyo-Markin, the ruling is a procedural setback rather than a loss on the merits. The court did not decide whether the “extortionist” comment was defamatory.
The case is also a reminder for litigants that defamation claims in Ghana must set out the exact words complained about in the writ itself. The rules governing court procedure are published by the Judicial Service of Ghana.
What happens next
Mr Anyaaba said Mr Afenyo-Markin can return to court if he chooses. “Once the merits of the case weren’t determined, he’s entitled, if he so wishes, to file a fresh action,” he said.
Mr Afenyo-Markin had not publicly said whether he would file a fresh suit or appeal at the time of writing.
Key details at a glance
- Plaintiff: Minority Leader and Effutu MP Alexander Afenyo-Markin
- Defendants: GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi and Multimedia Group Limited
- Amount claimed: GH¢15 million in damages, plus a retraction, apology and injunction
- Writ filed: August 24, 2026
- Ruling: October 14, 2026, High Court (General Jurisdiction 1)
- Reason: Writ did not set out particulars of the alleged defamatory words, breaching Order 57 Rule 2 of C.I. 47
- Costs: No order as to costs
FAQs
Why was Afenyo-Markin’s suit against Sammy Gyamfi dismissed?
The High Court ruled that the writ did not contain sufficient particulars of the alleged defamatory statement, as required by Order 57 Rule 2 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
Did the court rule that Sammy Gyamfi defamed Afenyo-Markin?
No. The court did not consider whether the statements were defamatory. It set aside the writ on procedural grounds only.
Can Afenyo-Markin file the case again?
Yes. Mr Gyamfi’s lawyer, Seth Anyaaba, said that since the merits were not determined, the Minority Leader is entitled to file a fresh action if he wishes.
The High Court has set aside Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s GH¢15 million defamation suit against Sammy Gyamfi and Multimedia Group because the writ did not set out the words complained about, as the rules require. The ruling does not settle whether the “extortionist” remark was defamatory, and the Minority Leader can still bring a fresh action.
