Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers say Sammy Gyamfi has been validly served with defamation writ
Dehyena Chambers says the GoldBod CEO initially authorised his lawyers to receive the court processes before they allegedly returned the writ, insisting service had already been legally effected.
51m ago·3 min read
Lawyers for Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin have rejected claims surrounding difficulties in serving a defamation writ on Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer Sammy Gyamfi, insisting that the NDC National Communications Officer has already been validly served.
In a press statement dated Saturday, August 29, 2026, Dehyena Chambers, solicitors for Afenyo-Markin, said reports suggesting that the Minority Leader was avoiding or failing to have the writ served on Gyamfi were false.
The lawyers said the writ was filed on August 24 as part of Afenyo-Markin's defamation action against Gyamfi and another defendant.
The lawsuit followed comments allegedly made by Gyamfi during the August 22 edition of JoyNews' Newsfile programme, during which he described Afenyo-Markin as an "extortionist". Afenyo-Markin denies the allegation and is seeking, among other reliefs, GH¢15 million in compensation, damages, a retraction, an apology and an injunction against further publication of the allegedly defamatory statements.
The latest dispute centres on whether the court processes have been properly served.
Earlier on Saturday, reports emerged that Gyamfi had formally authorised his lawyers, Ayine & Partners, to receive the writ on his behalf.
A notice dated August 26 and addressed to the Registrar of the High Court stated that the firm had received Gyamfi's "express instructions and authority" to accept service of the writ and accompanying processes.
The firm consequently asked the court to take notice that service could be effected through its chambers in East Legon, Accra.
However, Afenyo-Markin's lawyers say the sequence of events did not end there.
According to Dehyena Chambers, a court bailiff relied on the written authorisation and subsequently served the writ on Gyamfi's lawyers.
The statement alleges that on August 27, Ayine & Partners returned the writ to the court registry, indicating that their client had changed his mind regarding the service.
Dehyena Chambers further alleged that when the bailiff subsequently attempted to personally serve Gyamfi at his office, he refused to accept the writ and instructed his security personnel to send the bailiff out of the building.
These claims represent the account given by Afenyo-Markin's legal team and have not been independently established by a court.
Afenyo-Markin's lawyers maintain that returning the documents after they had been received did not undo the service they say had already taken place.
They cited Order 7, rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47), arguing that a writ is duly served when it is delivered to a lawyer who has undertaken in writing to accept service on behalf of a client.
On that basis, Dehyena Chambers contends that Gyamfi has already been legally served and must respond to the action.
The lawyers also rejected the suggestion that Afenyo-Markin, as the plaintiff who initiated the action, could simultaneously be responsible for avoiding service of his own writ.
They urged those circulating what they described as a contrary narrative to desist, maintaining that correspondence between the parties and the bailiff's official record would support their account.
The disagreement over service is the latest development in an escalating legal and political dispute between Afenyo-Markin and Gyamfi.
The Minority Leader announced the lawsuit in Parliament on August 24 following exchanges over GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana's Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.
Afenyo-Markin has denied Gyamfi's extortion allegation and said he was prepared to submit himself to investigations by appropriate state institutions if a formal complaint were made against him. He has also expressed confidence that the courts will ultimately determine the dispute on its merits.
Gyamfi's decision to authorise Ayine & Partners to receive the writ had earlier been presented as an indication of his readiness to respond to the lawsuit. His lawyers' August 26 notice itself did not amount to an admission of any of Afenyo-Markin's allegations.
The substantive allegations in the defamation action have yet to be determined by the court.