Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has urged Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin and his legal team to reconsider pursuing an appeal after the High Court dismissed his GH¢15 million defamation suit against Ghana Gold Board Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi.
Counsel Kpebu believes “an amicable settlement” would serve the public interest better than prolonging a dispute that could distract the two political figures from their national responsibilities.
Referencing the court’s decision, the lawyer acknowledged that Honourable Afenyo-Markin has legal options following the court’s decision, including an appeal or the institution of a fresh action. Nevertheless, he argued that the parties should consider whether litigation would achieve anything meaningful, given the frequency of insults and accusations in Ghana’s public discourse.
“I would have wished that Afenyo-Markin and his lawyers would not go on an appeal, but would instead let sleeping dogs lie.”
Counsel Martin Kpebu
Counsel Kpebu explained that an appeal would seek to overturn the decision, potentially allowing the case to proceed if the higher court found that the defect could be corrected. Alternatively, a fresh suit could provide another avenue for the Minority Leader to pursue his complaint, subject to compliance with the applicable legal requirements.
Nonetheless, the Lawyer appealed to respected statesmen to intervene and facilitate dialogue between the parties, maintaining that an amicable resolution could prevent the dispute from escalating. In his view, the prolonged contest risks diverting attention from the scrutiny of public affairs and the development priorities that elected officials are expected to pursue.
The private legal practitioner also challenged the suggestion that settling the matter outside court would permanently leave Honourable Afenyo-Markin burdened by the alleged “extortionist” label that prompted the lawsuit. He contended that political reputations are not necessarily determined by isolated accusations, citing Ghana’s electoral history as evidence that public perceptions can change over time.
According to Counsel Kpebu, politicians and other public figures routinely encounter insults and unflattering descriptions, making it important to weigh the cost of litigation against the likely outcome. He therefore questioned whether every offensive remark should trigger a legal battle, particularly when alternative avenues exist for resolving disagreements.
Counsel Questions High Court’s Approach To Substantive Justice
Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu, however, questioned the High Court’s decision to dismiss Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s defamation suit against Sammy Gyamfi on procedural grounds, arguing that the court could have considered whether the defect in the originating documents was capable of correction.
The lawyer believes the approach raises questions about balancing strict compliance with court rules against the need to determine disputes on their substantive merits.
“We do not use procedural technicalities to defeat substantive justice; substance must always triumph over form. When courts prioritize rigid legal technicalities over the real substance of a dispute, it risks undermining public confidence in the pursuit of true fairness.”
Counsel Martin Kpebu
Explaining the procedural issue, Counsel Kpebu noted that a writ of summons ordinarily identifies the parties, summarises the claim and outlines the relief being sought, while the statement of claim provides a fuller account of the allegations. He argued that where the details missing from the writ appear in the accompanying statement of claim, the court could consider allowing the error to be corrected instead of terminating the entire action.
However, the High Court found that the writ did not contain sufficient particulars identifying the allegedly defamatory publication, as required under Order 57 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, C.I. 47. The judge distinguished previous authorities cited in support of the argument that information in a statement of claim could cure such a defect, noting that the circumstances of the present case were different.
Mr Kpebu acknowledged that judges exercise discretion differently when interpreting procedural requirements, although he favoured an approach that preserves a case where a defect can lawfully be remedied
Behind The Case: How A GH¢15m Defamation Suit Unfolded
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin sued Ghana Gold Board Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi for defamation, seeking GH¢15 million in damages over remarks allegedly linking him to extortion in connection with the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.
The lawsuit centres on the Effutu MP’s contention that the statements damaged his reputation and portrayed him negatively in the public eye.
The dispute emerged from public exchanges concerning the gold purchase programme and allegations surrounding the conduct of the Minority Leader. Honourable Afenyo-Markin challenged the remarks through legal action, seeking compensation as well as a retraction and apology from Mr Gyamfi.
However, the High Court set aside the suit on October 14, 2026, after finding that the writ of summons did not provide sufficient particulars of the allegedly defamatory publication as required under the applicable civil procedure rules. The court’s decision concerned the procedural requirements of the case and did not determine whether the disputed remarks were defamatory.
Following the ruling, Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers, Dehyena Chambers, issued a press statement indicating that they intended to pursue the matter “to its logical conclusion.” The legal team said it was awaiting a copy of the full judgment before deciding on its next steps, adding that the court registry had not made the document available to them as of 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday.
READ ALSO: Endrick Defends Vini, Claims Madrid Star Is Targeted
