Afenyo-Markin’s lawyers reject claims over Sammy Gyamfi writ service, say he has been duly served

Lawyers for Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin have rejected claims that their client is avoiding service of a writ in a defamation suit against Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer, Sammy Gyamfi.

In a statement issued by Dehyena Chambers in Accra on behalf of Osahen Alexander Afenyo-Markin, it noted that the writ was filed on August 24, 2026, and Mr Gyamfi’s lawyers, Ayine & Partners, formally notified the Registrar of the High Court two days later that they had his “express instructions and authority” to accept service on his behalf.

The lawyers said the Bailiff subsequently served the writ on Ayine & Partners based on that written undertaking.

However, they said the lawyers returned the writ on August 27, claiming that Mr Gyamfi had changed his mind and no longer wanted them to accept service on his behalf.

Dehyena Chambers said a subsequent attempt by the Bailiff to personally serve Mr Gyamfi at his office on Thursday was also unsuccessful after his security personnel allegedly prevented the Bailiff 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,” the lawyers said in a statement.

The legal team further argued that the writ had already been validly served under Order 7, rule 12(2) of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules.

The provision, according to the lawyers, recognises service of a writ where 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 said.

The lawyers dismissed claims that Afenyo-Markin was responsible for any failure to serve the writ, urging those circulating such accounts to stop.

They said the relevant correspondence and the Bailiff’s official record would establish what transpired.

The legal team maintained that Mr Gyamfi would be required to respond to the defamation action before the court.

Read full statement below:
PRESS STATEMENT
FALSE CLAIMS REGARDING SERVICE OF WRIT ON SAMMY GYAMFI

Accra — 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.

Dehyena Chambers- Accra
— END —