- Afenyo-Markin Sues Sammy Gyamfi, Multimedia for Libel, Seeks GH¢15m Compensation
Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has filed a defamation action at the High Court in Accra against Sammy Gyamfi, Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board, and Multimedia Group Limited, seeking damages, a public apology and GH¢15 million in compensation over comments allegedly made during a JoyNews programme.
The writ names Osahene Alexander Afenyo-Markin as plaintiff, Samuel Adu Gyamfi, also known as Sammy Gyamfi, as first defendant and Multimedia Group Limited as second defendant. The action was filed in the General Jurisdiction of the High Court in Accra.
The lawsuit centres on statements Afenyo-Markin says were made by Mr Gyamfi during an appearance on Multimedia’s Newsfile programme on Saturday, August 22, 2026, while discussing the operations and financial performance of the Ghana Gold Board.
According to the statement of claim, Mr Gyamfi was responding to criticism concerning GoldBod’s operations when the discussion allegedly shifted towards Afenyo-Markin, with the GoldBod chief accused of describing him in terms that suggested he was an “extortionist”.
Afenyo-Markin strongly denies the allegation.
The suit contends that the words complained of were defamatory and were understood by viewers and listeners to mean, among other things, that the Minority Leader habitually engages in extortion, uses his political position to place improper pressure on public institutions and officials, and improperly interferes in public affairs for personal purposes.
These remain allegations contained in the plaintiff’s pleadings. The High Court has not made any determination on whether the statements were defamatory, whether they were made with malice, or whether either defendant is liable.
At the heart of the case is Afenyo-Markin’s contention that Mr Gyamfi went beyond responding to criticism of GoldBod and instead launched what the plaintiff describes as an unjustified personal attack.
The statement of claim reproduces portions of the comments attributed to Mr Gyamfi, including his challenge to Afenyo-Markin to identify any occasion on which he had been involved in extortion.
Afenyo-Markin argues that the manner in which those remarks were made nevertheless communicated the opposite impression to the audience — that there was a factual basis for associating him with extortion.
The suit says the comments were particularly damaging because Afenyo-Markin is both a legal practitioner and a senior political figure whose reputation for integrity, honesty and professionalism is central to his public life.
It further alleges that the remarks were subsequently circulated on social-media platforms, including Facebook and YouTube, widening their reach beyond the original Newsfile broadcast.
Afenyo-Markin argues that the publication exposed him to “hatred, ridicule, contempt and public disapprobation” and created a false impression that he had used his political position and influence to extort or improperly negotiate with public officials.
Among the particulars of malice pleaded are the alleged repeated use of the word “extortionist”, the repetition of an accusation that had not, according to the plaintiff, previously been disclosed to him, and what Afenyo-Markin characterises as the presentation of allegations as established facts rather than opinion.
The second defendant is accused of publishing or facilitating publication of the allegedly defamatory statements through Newsfile and of failing to prevent or discontinue the broadcast despite what the plaintiff describes as the legal consequences of the words being used.
That part of the action could become significant because the court may ultimately have to consider separately the alleged conduct of the speaker and the responsibilities of the media organisation that broadcast the exchange.
Afenyo-Markin is asking the High Court for general damages for libel, aggravated damages and exemplary damages.
He is also seeking an order compelling the defendants to publish a “full, unconditional and unequivocal” retraction of the allegedly defamatory statements and another order requiring a similarly unconditional public apology.
The plaintiff wants the retraction and apology to receive substantially the same prominence and reach as the original publication and is asking the court to direct that they be broadcast on JoyNews and published across the electronic and social-media platforms through which the original material was disseminated.
He is additionally seeking a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, assigns or persons acting under their authority from publishing the same or substantially similar allegedly defamatory words about him.
The writ further seeks GH¢15 million as compensation, in addition to costs, including legal costs, and any other relief the High Court considers appropriate.
The scale of the remedies sought makes the lawsuit potentially consequential beyond the immediate dispute between two prominent political figures.
It raises questions around the boundaries between robust political debate, criticism of public officials and defamatory allegations, particularly where political exchanges are carried live or rapidly distributed through digital platforms.
At this stage, the document is a statement of claim setting out Afenyo-Markin’s version of events and the reliefs he wants from the court. It does not establish that Mr Gyamfi committed defamation, that Multimedia acted unlawfully, or that Afenyo-Markin is entitled to the GH¢15 million he seeks.
The defendants will have the opportunity to respond to the claims and raise any factual or legal defences available to them before the High Court determines the merits.
What is already clear, however, is that an exchange on one of Ghana’s most prominent current-affairs programmes has moved rapidly from political argument into formal litigation.
The case now places before the High Court a question that frequently sits at the centre of Ghana’s fiercely contested political discourse: when does hard-edged public criticism stop being political speech and cross the legal threshold into actionable defamation?
