BY DANIEL BAMPOE
Minority Leader in Parliament, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has escalated his long-running confrontation with Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer, Sammy Gyamfi, from political exchanges into the courtroom, announcing that he has initiated legal action over statements he considers false and defamatory.
The Effutu Member of Parliament disclosed the legal action when Parliament reconvened on Monday, August 24, 2026, following several weeks of increasingly heated exchanges between the two public officials over GoldBod’s operations, the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) and reported losses associated with the programme.
The dispute, which initially centred on questions of public finance and accountability, has now developed into a separate legal battle over the language used by the GoldBod chief executive in responding to the Minority Leader.
At the centre of the controversy is an allegation made by Mr Gyamfi describing Mr Afenyo-Markin as an “extortionist”. The statement came after the Minority Leader intensified his scrutiny of the gold purchase programme and demanded explanations concerning a reported US$1.7 billion loss recorded by the Bank of Ghana in 2025.
Mr Afenyo-Markin has rejected the characterization and has argued that his questions form part of Parliament’s constitutional responsibility to scrutinise the use and management of public resources.
The Minority Leader subsequently announced that he had caused writs to be filed against Mr Gyamfi as well as media organisations and individuals connected to the publication or broadcast of the statements.
According to Mr Afenyo-Markin, one of the cases is Suit Number GT/1029/2026, titled Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin versus Samuel Adu Gyamfi and Multimedia Group Limited, filed at the Accra High Court. A second case, Suit Number GR/ACH/CC/C5/02/2026, titled Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin versus Eric Adjei and Peace FM, has also been filed at the Achimota Circuit Court.
Mr Afenyo-Markin said he was confident that the courts would ultimately determine whether the statements complained of were defamatory and whether they breached the applicable law.
Rather than continuing the dispute solely through political statements and media appearances, he said the matter would now be placed before the appropriate judicial forums for determination based on evidence and the law. “I have every confidence that in the fullness of time the court will make the appropriate determination,” he said.
The legal confrontation is the latest development in a broader political and financial dispute surrounding GoldBod and the DGPP.
The Minority has repeatedly demanded detailed explanations about the reported losses, including questions about who benefited from gold transactions, the discounts applied to off-takers, the fees paid in connection with the programme and the role played by GoldBod in transactions that ultimately appeared on the Bank of Ghana’s books. Mr Afenyo-Markin has maintained that regardless of which state institution’s balance sheet carries the loss, the issue involves public resources and therefore deserves parliamentary scrutiny.
The GoldBod chief executive, however, has rejected the suggestion that GoldBod itself should be held responsible for the reported US$1.7 billion loss. Mr Gyamfi has argued that GoldBod and the Bank of Ghana have distinct institutional responsibilities and that the reported financial loss must be properly understood within the structure and mechanics of the gold purchasing and trading programme.
He has also insisted that critics should be factual in their assessment of GoldBod’s financial performance rather than presenting the institution as having simply lost the amount being discussed in political circles.
The disagreement has therefore developed along two parallel tracks: one concerning the financial accountability of the gold programme and another involving the personal allegations exchanged by the two officials.
Mr Afenyo-Markin has sought to keep the financial questions at the centre of the parliamentary debate, insisting that the reported loss must be fully disaggregated and explained. Mr Gyamfi, meanwhile, has defended GoldBod’s record and pushed back against what he regards as attempts to attribute losses on the Bank of Ghana’s books directly to the GoldBod.
The controversy has also attracted wider institutional attention. The Office of the Special Prosecutor has acknowledged public allegations of extortion and related conduct made by Mr Gyamfi against Mr Afenyo-Markin, as well as petitions submitted by individuals concerning those allegations.
The OSP said it would assess the matter to determine whether it falls within its statutory mandate and whether further investigative action is warranted. That development has added another layer to a dispute that began as a disagreement over financial oversight but has increasingly moved into questions of alleged misconduct, reputation and legal responsibility.
Mr Afenyo-Markin has consistently maintained that his scrutiny of GoldBod is part of his duties as Minority Leader and that his demands for answers should not be interpreted as personal hostility.
He has argued that Parliament has an obligation to examine how public funds are deployed and how state institutions account for transactions involving national resources.
His position is that the reported losses, whether attributed to GoldBod, the Bank of Ghana or the broader structure of the DGPP, require clear documentation and accountability.
