Defamation Suit: Sammy Gyamfi ‘Validly Served’ , Afenyo-Markin’s Lawyers Tell It All

Lawyers for Minority Leader Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin have boldly dismissed claims that he is avoiding service of a writ in a defamation case against GoldBod CEO Sammy Gyamfi, insisting the defendant has already been “validly served” through his own lawyers.

In a statement issued on Saturday, August 29, 2026, Dehyena Chambers said Sammy Gyamfi formally authorised his legal representatives to accept the court documents on his behalf – and that service was duly effected before his lawyers attempted to return the writ.

The legal dispute stems from comments Mr. Sammy Gyamfi made during a JoyNews programme on 22 August, in which he described Mr. Afenyo-Markin as an “extortionist” during a discussion about the $1.7 billion loss that was recorded in Ghana’s gold trade under the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) in 2025 as reported by the IMF and confirmed by the government of Ghana. Gyamfi did not provide and has since not provided any evidence whatsoever to back his allegation against Afenyo-Markin

Osahen Afenyo-Markin filed the defamation suit at the Accra High Court on 24 August, naming Sammy Gyamfi and the Multimedia Group Limited as defendants. He is seeking damages, a retraction and apology, and an injunction against further publication of the alleged defamatory statements.

‘False claims’ about avoiding service

Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers began their August 29 clarification statement by addressing what they described as misinformation circulating on social media.

“We maintain our legal representation for Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin, the Plaintiff in this matter,” the statement read. “Our attention has been drawn to false claims that the Plaintiff in the defamation suit against Samuel Adu Gyamfi a.k.a Sammy Gyamfi is avoiding service of the Writ which we find not only untrue but also elementarily incomprehensive in law.”

According to the statement, the writ was filed on 24 August. Just two days later, on 26 August, an Accra-based law firm – Ayine & Partners – took a significant step.

“Per a supposed lawyer name Seth Nyaaba Esq. [Ayine & Partners] wrote to the Registrar of the High Court informing him that the law firm had Mr. Sammy Gyamfi’s ‘express instructions and authority’ to accept service of the writ on his behalf,” the statement recounted.

“It was with this understanding that a bailiff from the registry of the court duly served the Writ on the firm.”

Lawyers returned writ after service

Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers said the situation however took a dramatic turn: “Strangely, the lawyers for Mr. Sammy Gyamfi, on 27th August, 2026 returned the Writ to the registry claiming their client had changed his mind on service”.

“On that same day when the Bailiff then attempted personal service on Mr. Sammy Gyamfi at his office, he refused to accept the service of writ and instructed his security personnel to send the bailiff out of the building.”

The lawyers emphasised that the sequence of events made clear who was responsible for the service complications.

‘Plaintiff cannot be avoiding service’

The plaintiff’s legal team went on to explain the basic principles of Ghanaian civil procedure, arguing that the suggestion Osahen Afenyo-Markin was avoiding service demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.

“It is fundamentally clear under Ghanaian civil law practice that it is a Plaintiff who causes a writ to be issued and instantly receives a copy from the registry when same is filed. The registry then carries the duty to serve the Defendant with his copy of the writ,” the statement explained.

“It therefore cannot be the Plaintiff is avoiding service of the writ on the Defendant as alleged on social media. This is a muddling of the rules of civil law practice in Ghana which must be disregarded.”

The lawyers stressed the timeline of events to support their position.

“It must be emphasized that it is the Defendant who first authorised his lawyers to accept service of the writ which they complied only for the lawyers to return the process after service had been effected on them,” they said.

“Yet when personal service was attempted on the Defendant, he refused same according to the bailiff.”

‘Validly served’ under law

The lawyers cited the specific legal provision governing service of court documents.

“In any event, under Order 7, rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 C. I. 47 a writ is duly served once it is delivered to a lawyer who has undertaken in writing to accept service on behalf of a client,” the statement said.

“Accordingly, Mr. Sammy Gyamfi has been validly served.”

The legal team made clear that the law did not allow for a change of heart after service had already been accepted.

“We urge those spreading the contrary narrative to desist,” the statement warned. “The relevant correspondence and the Bailiff’s official record speak for themselves.”

The lawyers concluded by stating that Mr. Gyamfi was now legally obligated to respond to the lawsuit.

“Whatever be the situation, once his solicitors accepted the writ, Mr. Sammy Gyamfi is fixed with Knowledge of the writ against him and is required by law to file his appearance and defence to the suit before the Court,” the statement said.

The statement was signed by F. Paa Kwesi Abadoo, Esquire, Barrister/Solicitor of Dehyena Chambers, acting for Mr. Afenyo-Markin.

The substantive defamation case is yet to be determined by the court.