BY Grace Zigah
The General Jurisdiction 13 of the High Court in Accra has delivered a decisive judgment in the high-profile defamation case brought by former National Security Minister, Albert Kan Dapaah, against activist and lawyer Oliver Barker Vormawor, ordering him to pay a total of GH₵5.1 million in damages and legal costs.
The ruling, handed down on Tuesday, March 2, 2026, marks the culmination of a case that has seen procedural drama and legal maneuvers spanning both the High Court and the Supreme Court.
The case arose from public allegations made by Vormawor, in which he claimed that Kan Dapaah attempted to quell the FixTheCountry movement by offering him US$1 million bribe.
Vormawor further asserted that he had an audio recording of a meeting corroborating the claim.
These allegations were widely circulated and attracted significant public attention, given the prominence of both parties in national discourse.
During the trial, Vormawor failed to provide any evidence to substantiate his claims.
He did not produce the alleged audio recording or any supporting documentation.
As a result, Kan Dapaah, represented by Bright Okyere Agyekum, successfully proved that the statements were false, unfounded, and injurious to his reputation.
The High Court, after considering the evidence, found the statements to be defamatory and awarded substantial damages to the former minister.
Procedural Hurdles And drama
The litigation process saw several dramatic developments. Vormawor failed to file his defence on three occasions, prompting the High Court to consider applications for default judgment.
In a move to ensure a fair trial, the court accommodated claims that a drafted defence had disappeared from the laptop of Vormawor’s then-counsel, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, now deputy Attorney General, allowing the trial to proceed on the merits of the case.
During the pendency of the case, Vormawor also sought intervention from the Supreme Court for disclosure of documents he argued were critical to his defence.
These documents, however, were claimed by Kan Dapaah to have national security implications.
A five-member Supreme Court bench, led by then-Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, unanimously dismissed the application, holding that Vormawor had failed to identify specific documents and had not properly invoked the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 135 of the 1992 Constitution.
Legal And societal implications
The final judgment, delivered by Justice Dr. Richmond Osei-Hwere, reinforces the legal boundaries governing public statements, activism, and accountability, particularly where allegations can tarnish the reputation of public officials.
