Court strikes out Ofori-Atta's GH¢10m defamation suit against Captain Smart

A High Court in Accra has struck out a GH¢10 million defamation suit filed by former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta against broadcaster Blessed Godsbrain Smart (Captain Smart), citing a lack of prosecution.

The case, numbered GJ/0901/2023, was dismissed on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, after the court invoked Order 36 Rule 1 (2) (b) of CI 47.

Delivering the ruling, according to thelawplatform.com, Justice Francis Obiri, sitting as an additional High Court judge, stated: “I will therefore invoke Order 36 Rule 1 (2) (b) of CI 47 and strike out the Plaintiff’s suit… for want of prosecution. And same is accordingly struck out.”

The development was posted by The Law Platform on X, referencing the case titled KEN OFORI-ATTAH v BLESSED GODSBRAIN SMART & ANOR [TLP-HC-2026-11].

According to the court, the plaintiff had repeatedly failed to pursue the case actively.

Justice Obiri noted that the matter had been adjourned multiple times without meaningful progress.

“Per the records before the Court, the case is a part-heard. It has been adjourned about eighteen times. However, the Plaintiff has appeared in court only three times. The last time the Plaintiff appeared in court was May 20, 2024,” the judge stated.

The court also rejected an application for adjournment filed by counsel for Ken Ofori-Atta, Bright Okyere-Adjekum, who had sought to proceed in his client’s absence.

The suit stemmed from alleged defamatory comments made by Captain Smart on a television programme operated by Media General.

In his writ, Ofori-Atta claimed the broadcaster made statements suggesting he had taken a percentage of funds from Ghana’s dealings with the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The contested remarks included: “Are you aware that Ken Ofori Atta has taken his 10% of the IMF money? And every loan we take, he takes 10%,” which the plaintiff described as “palpably false, absolutely fabricated… also deliberately calculated to disparage” him.

Explaining the legal basis for the decision, the report said Justice Obiri emphasised the court’s authority under procedural rules, stating: “Under Order 36 Rule 1 (2) (b) of CI 47, where an action is called for hearing or continuation and the Plaintiff fails to attend Court, the Court can dismiss the action or strike it out for want of prosecution.”

The case was ultimately struck out without costs awarded to the defendants.

NA/AE