What We Know About Afenyo-Markin’s Suit Against GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi

Published August 28, 2026

Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has commenced a defamation action at the High Court in Accra against the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, and Multimedia Group Limited.
The suit is the latest development in an increasingly heated public dispute between the Minority Leader and the GoldBod CEO over reported losses associated with Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.

Here is what we know about the case so far.

1. What triggered the dispute?
   The controversy arose against the backdrop of questions raised by Mr Afenyo-Markin over reported losses of approximately US$1.7 billion associated with the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025.
   Mr Gyamfi has rejected attempts to attribute those losses to GoldBod and accused critics of engaging in a smear campaign.
   The disagreement subsequently became personal.
2. The comments at the centre of the lawsuit
   According to the Statement of Claim, Mr Gyamfi appeared on JoyNews’ Newsfile on Saturday, 22 August 2026, where the discussion turned to Mr Afenyo-Markin’s remarks at an earlier press conference.
   Mr Afenyo-Markin alleges in pliant that during the programme, Mr Gyamfi described him as an “extortionist”.
   Mr Gyamfi also publicly challenged the Minority Leader to sue him if he considered the allegation defamatory and indicated that he was prepared to defend same in court.
3. Afenyo-Markin has now taken up that challenge
   On 24th August 2026, Mr Afenyo-Markin commenced legal proceedings at the High Court.
   The writ names Sammy Gyamfi and Multimedia Group Limited Defendants.
   
4. What exactly does Afenyo-Markin say was defamatory?
   The Minority Leader’s case goes beyond the mere use of the word “extortionist”.
   He contends that the statements, when understood in their ordinary meaning, portrayed him as a person who habitually engages in extortion, uses his political position to exert improper pressure on public officials and institutions, improperly interferes in public affairs and conducts himself in a manner inconsistent with the standards expected of a legal practitioner and public figure.
   Mr Afenyo-Markin categorically denies engaging in extortion.
5. He is also alleging malice
   The Statement of Claim alleges that the comments were published maliciously.
   Among the matters relied upon are the alleged repeated use of the description “extortionist”, Mr Gyamfi’s insistence on the allegation when questioned, his assertion that he possessed evidence and his repeated challenge to Mr Afenyo-Markin to sue him.
   Whether those matters establish malice in law will ultimately be a question for the Court, assuming the action proceeds to trial.
6. Why has Multimedia Group also been sued?
   The comments complained of were made during Newsfile, which is broadcast by Multimedia Group.
   Mr Afenyo-Markin’s case is that Multimedia published and/or facilitated the publication of the statements to its audience and that recordings subsequently circulated through social-media and other electronic platforms.
   The broadcaster has consequently been joined as the second defendant.
7. What does Afenyo-Markin want from the Court?
   The reliefs are extensive.
   Mr Afenyo-Markin is seeking general, aggravated and exemplary damages for libel.
   He also wants the Court to order the defendants to publish a full, unconditional and unequivocal retraction and public apology, with substantially the same prominence as the original publication.
   He additionally seeks a perpetual injunction restraining further publication of the allegedly defamatory statements and a claim for GH¢15 million in costs as compensation.
8. What happens next?
   The filing of the suit does not establish that the statements were defamatory or that the allegations against Mr Afenyo-Markin were false.
   Those remain allegations contained in the Minority Leader’s pleadings.
   
   The next significant step will therefore be the defendants’ formal response to the action and, in particular, the defence Mr Gyamfi advances to the defamation claim.
   The case potentially sets up a significant legal contest over reputation, political speech and the evidential burden that follows when a serious allegation of wrongdoing moves from political discourse into the realms of the court