GH¢10M defamation case: Kan-Dapaah refuses to answer Vormawor’s 17 questions

According to him, the request for him to admit to those facts concerns national security confidentiality and his Oath of Secrecy as a minister.

Barker-Vormawor and his lawyers, led by Dr Justice Srem Sai on February 13, 2024, filed an application at the High Court seeking the National Security Minister to admit to some 17 questions (facts).

His request to the Court titled “Request to admit facts” was in relation to Albert Kan Dapaah’s GHc10 million defamation suit against him.

However, 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 refuses 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.

EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, gathers that lawyers of Oliver Barker-Vormawor are likely to head to the Supreme Court following the National Security Minister’s refusal to admit to those facts.

The Court presided over by Justice Rev. Joseph Owusu-Adu Agyemang has since adjourned the case to June 19, 2024.

While Oliver Barker-Vormawor was present, Kan Dapaah was absent from Court on Thursday, March 21.

Background

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

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

The action of Kan Dapaah comes on the back of some allegations made by the #Fix-The-Country Convener that the National Security and some government officials had met him and offered him money in order for him to stop his activism against the government.

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

The Minister is seeking “recovery of the sum of Ten Million Ghana cedis (GHC10,000,000.00) as General Damages including Aggravated and/or Exemplary Damages for Defamation for the words uttered by Defendant.”

“An apology for and retraction of the words complained of supra.”

“A perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant from repeating similar or other defamatory words against the Plaintiff.”

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

“Request to admit 17 facts”

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

The defendant’s lawyers, led by Dr. Justice Srem Sai, filed a motion titled “Request to admit facts” and want the Plaintiff (Kan-Dapaah) to admit 17 facts.

“Take Notice that the defendant in this action requires the Plaintiff to admit for the purposes of this action only, the several facts respectively here under specified; and the Plaintiff is hereby required within fourteen (14) days from the service of this request, to admit the said several facts, saving in this action all just exceptions to the admissibility of such facts as evidence in this action.

EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, reports that the parties are back in Court on February 20, 2024, for directions.

Below are questions the Plaintiff required Kan Dapaah to admit to

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 decision (s) 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.