The escalating confrontation between Parliament’s Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin, and the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, has entered a new and potentially explosive phase, with the Effutu Member of Parliament taking the GoldBod boss to court over statements he describes as false and defamatory.
Mr Afenyo-Markin announced the legal action on Monday, August 24, 2026, when Parliament reconvened, signalling that the bitter public exchanges between the two men over GoldBod and the Domestic Gold Purchase Programme (DGPP) have now moved from the political arena into the courtroom.
The Minority Leader says he has initiated legal proceedings over allegations made against him by Mr Gyamfi, including the description of him as an “extortionist.”
The allegation was made during a public dispute sparked by Mr Afenyo-Markin’s persistent demands for answers over the reported US$1.7 billion loss associated with the Bank of Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme in 2025.
TWO COURT ACTIONS
Mr Afenyo-Markin disclosed that writs have been filed against Mr Gyamfi and media organisations that allegedly published or broadcast the statements at issue.
He cited Suit Number GT/1029/2026, titled Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin v. Samuel Adu Gyamfi and Multimedia Group Limited, at the Accra High Court.
A second action, Suit Number GR/ACH/CC/C5/02/2026, titled Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin v. Eric Adjei and Peace FM, has also been filed at the Achimota Circuit Court.
The Minority Leader said he was confident that the courts would determine the dispute on the basis of evidence and the applicable law.
“I have every confidence that in the fullness of time the court will make the appropriate determination,” he said.
FROM PARLIAMENT TO THE COURTROOM
The legal battle is the latest development in weeks of increasingly heated exchanges over the financial operations of GoldBod and the DGPP.
Mr Afenyo-Markin has repeatedly demanded detailed explanations from government and GoldBod concerning the reported losses associated with the gold purchase programme.
His central argument has been that the reported financial losses require parliamentary scrutiny and clear accountability from the institutions responsible for the programme.
But Mr Gyamfi has strongly disputed suggestions that GoldBod itself incurred the reported loss.
The GoldBod CEO has maintained that the financial figures being discussed must be properly understood and has rejected attempts to attribute the entire reported loss directly to GoldBod.
The disagreement subsequently became personal, with Mr Gyamfi accusing the Minority Leader of being an “extortionist.”
Mr Afenyo-Markin has now chosen the courts as the arena in which that allegation will be tested.
The case could also place the underlying GoldBod controversy under even greater public scrutiny.
While the immediate legal question concerns alleged defamatory statements, the political dispute that triggered them centres on a much bigger issue: how Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme was operated and how the reported US$1.7 billion loss arose.
The Minority Leader’s campaign for answers has placed GoldBod under sustained parliamentary scrutiny.
For Afenyo-Markin, the lawsuits represent an opportunity to defend his reputation and challenge what he considers a serious and damaging allegation.
For Mr Gyamfi, the proceedings provide an opportunity to substantiate his claims and put his version of the dispute before the courts.
For the public, however, the case presents a much wider question.
Can political and public officials make serious allegations against one another without producing evidence?
The courts will ultimately determine whether the statements complained of were defamatory and what remedies, if any, should follow.
But beyond the courtroom battle, the GoldBod controversy remains firmly on Parliament’s agenda.
The reported US$1.7 billion loss, the operation of the DGPP, the role of GoldBod and the government’s management of Ghana’s gold resources remain matters of significant public interest.
The emerging courtroom battle should not become a distraction from the central accountability issue.
If GoldBod has nothing to hide, its financial operations should withstand rigorous parliamentary and public scrutiny.
If the reported losses have been misunderstood or wrongly attributed, the government and GoldBod should provide the documents and financial explanations necessary to settle the matter.
And if allegations of wrongdoing have been made against the Minority Leader, those allegations should be tested against evidence rather than political rhetoric.
Now that the matter is before the courts, the evidence must speak.
The courtroom has become the next battleground in Ghana’s increasingly bitter GoldBod controversy.
