An Accra High Court’s decision awarding GH¢5 million in damages against activist and lawyer Oliver Barker-Vormawor in favour of former National Security Minister Albert Kan-Dapaah is more than a high-value defamation ruling, but also a case study on how evidence, procedure, and litigation strategy can determine the fate of a claim.
While the public narrative initially centred on explosive allegations of bribery, the final judgment reveals a quieter but decisive story: one of unchallenged evidence, procedural default, and the legal consequences of failing to substantiate serious claims.
From Allegation to Liability
The dispute arose from statements made by Barker-Vormawor in September 2023, alleging that Kan-Dapaah had offered him US$1 million, government appointments, and other inducements to abandon his involvement in the FixTheCountry movement. The allegations escalated further to include claims of threats after the supposed refusal of the offer.
Kan-Dapaah denied these claims and initiated a defamation action, arguing that the statements were false, malicious, and damaging to his reputation.
READ ALSO
In defamation law, allegations of corruption and abuse of public office occupy the highest tier of gravity. The High Court agreed, holding that such statements, in their natural and ordinary meaning, portrayed the plaintiff as: corrupt, criminally inclined, and abusive of public office.
The Court emphasized that imputations of criminal conduct, such as bribery or threats, are actionable per se, meaning no proof of special damage is required.
The Case That Went Unanswered
The outcome was shaped not only by the seriousness of the allegation, but the absence of a sustained defence.
Although Barker-Vormawor initially filed a statement of defence and counterclaim, indeed admitting to making the statements and attempting to justify them, those pleadings were later struck out for non-compliance with court orders regarding witness statements.
The effect was that the case stood effectively uncontested.
The Court drew on established principles under Ghana’s Evidence Act and case law to reiterate the point that while a defendant may not bear the initial burden of proof, he cannot expect to succeed without leading evidence where facts are in dispute.
In the absence of such evidence, the Court is entitled to, and often will, decide the case based solely on the plaintiff’s version of events.
Here, Kan-Dapaah’s evidence, including video recordings and transcripts of the alleged defamatory statements, went unchallenged in any meaningful sense.
The Court therefore accepted his case as proven on a preponderance of probabilities.
The “Audio” and the Problem of Proof
A striking feature of the broader controversy was the claimed existence of an audio recording said to capture the alleged bribery conversation. Yet, as the litigation unfolded, no such evidence was produced before the Court.
The Court invoked the classic principle that a party does not prove an assertion merely by repeating it on oath; where evidence is capable of being produced, it must be produced.
In effect, the case became a stark illustration of evidentiary failure, where the absence of corroboration, coupled with procedural missteps, left the allegations legally indefensible.
Why the Damages Were So High
Although the plaintiff sought GH¢10 million, the Court awarded GH¢5 million in damages, alongside GH¢100,000 in costs.
First, the Court emphasised the gravity of the allegations, noting that they struck at the heart of the plaintiff’s integrity, particularly given his role as National Security Minister.
Second, the Court found that the statements were made: on multiple occasions, with “careless abandon,” and were actuated by malice.
Third, and perhaps most significantly, the defendant’s post-publication conduct aggravated the harm: he repeated the allegations, justified them even after the suit was filed, and offered no apology or retraction.
In defamation law, such conduct often justifies aggravated damages, as it reflects not just the harm caused, but the defendant’s attitude toward that harm.
Customary Law Meets Common Law
An interesting dimension of the judgment is its engagement with both common law and customary law principles of defamation.
While the Court acknowledged the common law position that slander is generally not actionable without proof of special damage, it highlighted two important exceptions:
1. Where a criminal offence is imputed, and
2. Under customary law, where defamatory statements are actionable per se.
This dual framework reinforces the ease with which liability may arise in Ghana where statements attack personal reputation in serious terms.
Beyond its immediate outcome, this case raises questions about public discourse and accountability.
On one hand, activism and public criticism are vital in democratic governance. On the other, the judgment draws a firm line: allegations of corruption and misconduct must be grounded in verifiable evidence.
The right to speak does not include the right to make unsubstantiated claims that destroy reputations without consequence.
What began as a politically charged allegation ended as a legally straightforward case, decided not on competing narratives, but on one narrative left standing.
Whether an appeal will follow remains uncertain. For now, the judgment stands as a defining moment in Ghana’s contemporary defamation landscape.
