Alexander Afenyo-Markin refiles GH₵15m defamation suits against Gyamfi and Adjei

Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has initiated fresh legal proceedings at the Accra High Court against Sammy Gyamfi, CEO of the Ghana Gold Board, and Eric Adjei, CEO of the National Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (NEIP). These new defamation lawsuits follow the recent dismissal or withdrawal of previous cases involving the same parties. The legal actions center on claims that Gyamfi and Adjei made defamatory statements labeling the Minority Leader an "extortionist" during public discourse regarding financial management at the Ghana Gold Board.

The decision to refile comes after the High Court previously struck out a GH₵15 million suit against Sammy Gyamfi, citing that the original writ was incurably defective. Concurrently, Afenyo-Markin’s legal team withdrew a separate defamation case against Eric Adjei that had been pending at the Achimota Circuit Court. While the withdrawal in the Adjei case was initially linked to suggestions of an amicable resolution, the new filings—registered as cases GJ/0045/2027 and GJ/0061/2027—confirm the Minority Leader's intent to seek a full judicial determination on the merits of his claims.

The dispute originates from intense political exchanges regarding alleged losses of approximately $1.9 billion under the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme. Afenyo-Markin had been a vocal critic of the program's performance, which prompted the defendants to make the statements now being contested in court. His legal team maintains that the new suits have been carefully drafted to comply with the court's latest procedural interpretations, ensuring the cases can proceed despite the technical failures that led to the earlier writs being set aside.

As these cases move forward in the Accra High Court, they represent a significant legal effort by the Minority Leader to restore his reputation and secure damages for what he describes as unfounded attacks on his integrity. The proceedings are expected to test the boundaries between protected political speech and personal defamation in the context of public accountability for state-managed financial programs. Both defendants have previously defended their remarks, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle over the extortion allegations.