GH¢10m defamation: Supreme Court dismisses Barker-Vormawor’s request for Kan Dapaah to answer questions

The Supreme Court has dismissed Oliver Barker-Vormawor’s motion for National Security Minister, Albert Kan Dapaah, to respond to 17 questions of fact in the GH¢10 million defamation case.

The panel of five, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, said there was no reference to identifiable documents, whether “official or unofficial,” in the request sought by the applicant.

The panel, which also includes Justice Mariam Owusu, Justice Samuel Asiedu, Justice Yaw Darko Asare, and Justice Richard Agyei Frimpong, said the application is “unsupported” and dismissed it.

The Apex Court subsequently declined the request from Albert Kan Dapaah’s lawyers to seek costs of GH¢50,000 from Oliver Barker-Vormawor.

Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, counsel for Oliver Barker-Vormawor, while moving the application premised on Article 135 of the 1992 Constitution, prayed the Apex Court to grant an order directing the National Security Minister to disclose information he has refused to disclose.

“The question is whether the particular facts that the defendant (Barker-Vormawor) is requesting from the plaintiff (Kan Dapaah) should be disclosed by the plaintiff-respondent to assist the trial in the High Court,” Dr. Justice Srem-Sai argued.

Counsel, meanwhile, prayed to the Court to allow them to provide the Court with specific documents they wanted from the minister.

However, Bright Otchere-Adjekum, counsel for Albert Kan Dapaah, argued that there was no request made on them to produce documents.

He prayed that the application be dismissed because the applicant was on a fishing expedition.

Background

Lawyers of political activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor, led by Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, dragged National Security Minister Albert Kan Dapaah to the Supreme Court for refusing to answer 17 questions in his GH¢10 million defamation case.

The action to the Apex Court sought to order the Minister to respond to those questions of fact, which in his view would bring clarity to the suit against him at the High Court.

The decision to go to the Supreme Court was premised on the Minister’s response that it concerns national security.

On February 28, 2024, a response filed by the Minister’s lawyers, led by Bright Otchere Adjekum, titled “Response to Request to Admit Facts,” stated that the Minister refuses to respond to the questions because of national security reasons.

They also said the request for their client to admit those facts concerns national security confidentiality and his Oath of Secrecy as a Minister.

Dissatisfied with the Minister’s refusal to respond to the questions of fact, Barker-Vormawor and his lawyers, led by Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, filed a “Motion on Notice for an Order for Disclosure of Facts or Documents Pursuant to Article 135 of the 1992 Constitution” at the Apex Court.

“Take notice that this honourable Court shall be moved by Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, Esq., of Praetorium Solicitors, counsel for and on behalf of the Defendant/Applicant herein, praying the honourable Court to, on the ground set forth in the accompanying affidavit:

Order the Plaintiff/Respondent to disclose the official facts or documents in answer to the Defendant/Applicant’s Request to Admit Facts dated February 13, 2024, to the Court for consideration; and

Make any other order(s) which the honourable Court deems fit,” the motion paper stated.

Affidavit in Support

In his affidavit in support of the motion, Barker-Vormawor contended that his request for the Minister to admit facts, if answered, would reveal that the Minister tried to dissuade him from continuing his civic activism.

a. That the plaintiff was directed by the government to, on its behalf, dissuade or prevent me from continuing my civic activism with the FixTheCountry movement.

b. That the government, through the plaintiff, did, with pecuniary and other offers, attempt to procure me to abandon my civic activism with the FixTheCountry movement.

c. That the plaintiff did cause, conspire to cause, or was complicit in causing my arrest, detention, torture, threats of harm and death, abuse, and harassment, and was also complicit in the prosecutions which I have been going through since February 2021.

d. That the government’s decision to declare me a national security threat and cause my surveillance, arrest, detention, torture, inhumane treatment, and trial on charges of treason and traffic offenses was actuated by my refusal to abandon my civil activism with the FixTheCountry movement.

Kan Dapaah’s Reply

National Security Minister Albert Kan Dapaah, while refusing to admit those questions, cited national security reasons.

In a response filed by the Minister’s lawyers on February 28, 2024, led by Bright Otchere Adjekum titled “Response to Request to Admit Facts,” the Minister refused to respond to the questions.

“Take notice that the Plaintiff (Kan Dapaah) refuses to admit the several facts contained in Paragraphs 3 to 17 of the Request to Admit Facts on the basis of national security confidentiality and his Oath of Secrecy,” Kan Dapaah’s response indicated.

Subject Matter

The National Security Minister had accused the former FixTheCountry Movement Convener of defamation and initiated legal action against him.

National Security Minister Albert Kan Dapaah filed the defamation suit over comments made by Barker-Vormawor which the Minister alleges defamed him.

Kan Dapaah’s action follows allegations made by the #FixTheCountry Convener that the National Security and some government officials had met him and offered him money to stop his activism against the government.

The allegation was refuted by the National Security Minister, who subsequently filed a defamation suit in court against Barker-Vormawor.

The Minister is seeking “recovery of the sum of Ten Million Ghana Cedis (GH¢10,000,000.00) as general damages, including aggravated and/or exemplary damages for defamation for the words uttered by the defendant.”

The Minister also seeks “an apology for and retraction of the words complained of supra,” and “a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from repeating similar or other defamatory words against the plaintiff.”

The defendant, Barker-Vormawor, and his lawyers, led by Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, have since filed a defense and counterclaims, with the court set to give further directions.

Questions for Kan Dapaah

Political activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor has filed an application at the High Court seeking the National Security Minister to admit 17 questions.

Lawyers of the defendant, led by Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, per a motion filed and titled “Request to Admit Facts,” want the plaintiff (Kan Dapaah) to admit the following 17 facts:

1. That the plaintiff is a member of the National Security Council.
2. That the plaintiff attends the meetings of the National Security Council.
3. That the National Security Council did discuss the defendant.
4. That the National Security Council did discuss the activities of the FixTheCountry movement.
5. That the National Security Council did discuss the defendant’s activities with the FixTheCountry movement.
6. That the National Security Council did take a decision on how to handle, deal with, or treat the defendant.
7. That the National Security Council did take a decision on how to handle, deal with, or treat the FixTheCountry movement.
8. That the National Security Council did consider the defendant as a threat to national security.
9. That the National Security Council did consider the activities of the FixTheCountry movement as a threat to national security.
10. That the plaintiff did consider the defendant as a threat to national security.
11. That the plaintiff did consider the activities of the FixTheCountry movement as a threat to national security.
12. That the National Security Council did require, direct, instruct, or expect the plaintiff to carry out its decisions on the defendant.
13. That the National Security Council did require, direct, instruct, or expect the plaintiff to carry out its decisions on the FixTheCountry movement.
14. That the National Security Council did require, direct, instruct, or expect the plaintiff to coordinate the carrying out of its decisions on the defendant.
15. That the National Security Council did require, direct, instruct, or expect the plaintiff to coordinate the carrying out of its decisions on the FixTheCountry movement.
16. That the plaintiff does work or perform his functions (as the Minister responsible for national security) through the security and intelligence agencies.
17. That the plaintiff does work or perform his functions (as the Minister responsible for national security) through the Ghana Police Service.

Source: Ghana/Starrfm.com.gh/Murtala Inusah