'Sammy Gyamfi has been duly served, must appear before court' - Afenyo-Markin's lawyers

Lawyers for Alexander Afenyo-Markin have maintained that Ghana Gold Board Chief Executive Officer, Sammy Gyamfi, has been duly served with the writ in the defamation suit filed against him.

In a press statement released on August 29, 2026, the lawyers dismissed claims that the plaintiff was avoiding service of the writ, insisting that the court processes had been validly served on Gyamfi.

According to the statement, the writ was filed on August 24, 2026, and on August 26, 2026, Ayine & Partners formally informed the Registrar of the High Court that they had Gyamfi's "express instructions and authority" to accept service on his behalf.

The lawyers said the Bailiff subsequently served the writ on Gyamfi's legal representatives based on the written undertaking.

However, they indicated that the lawyers returned the writ on August 27, 2026, claiming that their client had changed his mind.

The statement further alleged that when the Bailiff subsequently attempted to personally serve Gyamfi at his office, security personnel prevented him from doing so and directed the Bailiff to his residence.

"Our attention has been drawn to false claims that the Plaintiff in the defamation suit against Samuel Adu Gyamfi is avoiding service of the Writ," the statement said.

The lawyers argued that it was rather the defendant who had frustrated efforts at service.

"The position is straightforward: it is not and cannot be the Plaintiff who is avoiding service. It is the Defendant who first authorised his lawyers to accept service, withdrew that authority after service had been effected, and then obstructed an attempt at personal service," the statement added.

Citing Order 7, rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, the lawyers maintained that the service on Gyamfi's legal representatives was valid.

"In any event, under Order 7, rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 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. Accordingly, Mr Gyamfi has been validly served," the statement stressed.

The lawyers urged persons spreading what they described as a contrary narrative to desist, insisting that the relevant correspondence and the Bailiff's official record supported their position.

They added that Gyamfi would be required to answer to the defamation suit before the court.

Read statement below

PRESS STATEMENT

FALSE CLAIMS REGARDING SERVICE OF WRIT ON SAMMY GYAMFI

Our attention has been drawn to false claims that the Plaintiff in the defamation suit against Samuel Adu Gyamfi is avoiding service of the Writ.

The writ was filed 24 August 2026. On 26 August 2026, Ayine & Partners formally informed the Registrar of the High Court that they had Mr Gyamfi’s “express instructions and authority” to accept service on his behalf. Relying on that written undertaking, the Bailiff duly served the Writ on his lawyers.

Subsequently, the lawyers on 27 August returned the Writ, claiming their client had changed his mind. When the Bailiff then attempted personal service at Mr Gyamfi’s office on that Thursday, his security personnel prevented him from doing so and directed him to Mr Gyamfi’s residence.

The position is straightforward: it is not and cannot be the Plaintiff who is avoiding service. It is the Defendant who first authorised his lawyers to accept service, withdrew that authority after service had been effected, and then obstructed an attempt at personal service.

In any event, under Order 7, rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 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. Accordingly, Mr Gyamfi has been validly served.

We urge those spreading the contrary narrative to desist. The relevant correspondence and the Bailiff’s official record speak for themselves. Mr Gyamfi will be required to answer the suit before the Court.

— END —