Opoku Prempeh v Gyamfi (SUIT NO.H1/263/24) [2026] GHACA 7 (16 July 2026)

DR. MATTHEW OPOKU PREMPEH V. SAMUEL GYAMFI) -

Judgment

pg. 1 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL ACCRA, 2026

Coram

JEROME NOBLE-NKRUMAH, J.A (PRESIDING) GEORGE BUADI, J.A FRANKLINA GESILA ADANU, J.A

SUIT NO.H1/263/24 16TH JULY 2026

DR. MATTHEW OPOKU PREMPEH ----------- PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

VERSUS

SAMUEL GYAMFI ---------- DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

FRANKLINA GESILA ADANU, J.A:

1.0 General Overview This is an appeal of the High Court judgment delivered on 13/10/2022. The protection of reputation lies at the heart of the tort of defamation. Warren Buffett stated in his testimony before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications DR. MATTHEW OPOKU PREMPEH V. SAMUEL GYAMFI) -

pg. 2 and Finance on 4 September 1991 in Washington, D.C., that: “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.” Nonetheless, to forestall abuse and to mitigate defamation suits while still recognising the rights of a defamed person to seek damages in compensation, the essential thresholds must necessarily be met by every prospective plaintiff.

2.1 Plaintiff/Respondent Case (“Respondent”) By an amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim filed on 16/07/2019, the Respondent stated that he is a medical doctor by profession, Minister for Education and the Member of Parliament for Manhyia South Constituency in the Ashanti Region of the Republic of Ghana. The Appellant is a lawyer by profession and the Communications Officer for the National Democratic Congress (NDC). The Respondent assert that in both public and private life, he has, by dint of hard work, earned himself an admirable reputation as a competent, diligent and principled individual and a responsible citizen. On several occasions, he has been recognised for his hard work, the most recent being a 2019 poll conducted by the Political Science Department of the University of Ghana dubbed, “Assessment of the 275 Members of Parliament (MPs) – Perspective from the Constituents”, which said poll declared him the best performing Minister of the Republic of Ghana. The Respondent further averred that he has participated in many conferences and seminars both in Ghana and abroad and has gained the respect and admiration of his contemporaries and colleagues both in Ghana and abroad.

According to the Respondent, at a press conference addressed by the Appellant on 13/06/2019, the Appellant read out and distributed to the members of the press, a Press Statement which sought to associate the Respondent with one Seidu Yakubu Mba, a suspect in the high-profile and infamous kidnapping case DR. MATTHEW OPOKU PREMPEH V. SAMUEL GYAMFI) -

pg. 3 involving two Canadian students who were on an exchange programme in Ghana, sometime in June 2019. The Respondent said at paragraph 14 of his amended Statement of Claim that at the said Press Conference and in the said Press Statement, the Appellant categorically referred to Seidu Yakubu Mba as the ringleader of a syndicate of thugs and criminals who were behind the kidnapping of the two Canadian students. Furthermore, the Appellant proceeded to associate the said Seidu Yakubu Mba with the Respondent by stating and publishing the following false words, contained in the said Press Statement:

“Seidu’s association with the NPP is more than meets the eye. He is alleged to be the personal bodyguard of the Asokore Mampong MCE, Alhaji Alidu Seidu, and an errand boy for both Manhyia South MP, Hon. Matthew Opoku Prempeh, and Ashanti regional Chairman of the NPP, Bernard Antwi Bosiako (a.k.a. Wontumi).”

With the above particulars of defamation, the Respondent stated that the Appellant made the said statement within a context targeted at ascribing to the Respondent, inappropriate conduct of being involved with persons the Appellant described in the Press Statement as thugs and criminals. The Respondent posits that the above statement is not only false but malicious, as the said Seidu Yakubu Mba is not his errand boy. It is the case of the Respondent that the said false and malicious statement was given extensive coverage in the traditional media through newspaper reports and various discussions on radio and television. Besides, it was also given widespread coverage through social and digital media, particularly via highly frequented online portals , including YouTube, an American video-sharing website with a very large viewership. Consequently, the Respondent’s character and reputation have been seriously damaged by the alleged false and malicious defamatory statement by the Appellant. The DR. MATTHEW OPOKU PREMPEH V. SAMUEL GYAMFI) -

pg. 4 Respondent claims that the Appellant has no reasonable and maintainable defence to the instant action.

The reliefs endorsed on the Respondent’s Writ of Summons against the Appellant were as follows:

“ a) A declaration that the words complained of and published by the Defendant and contained in paragraph 14, herein, are defamatory of the Plaintiff’s character. b) An order of the Honourable Court directed at the Defendant to publish an unqualified retraction and an apology with the same prominence the defamatory words received within 7 days after the judgment. c) An order of the Honourable Court for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, his agents, assigns, servants and any person claiming authority from the Defendant, from further making and/or publishing any defamatory words against the Plaintiff. d) The sum of One Million Ghana Cedis (GHC 1,000,000.00) in damages for defamation e) Costs including Lawyer’s fees; and f) Any other order or orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances.”

2.2 Defendant/Appellant’s Case (“Appellant”) In his amended Statement of Defence filed on 25/11/2019, the Appellant denied the Respondent’s allegation that the statement that Seidu Yakubu Mba is his errand boy is defamatory. According to the Appellant, the various meanings ascribed to the alleged defamatory statement are far -fetched, misplaced, unreasonable, contextually and semantically inaccurate. The Appellant further stated that the Respondent has not suffered any reputational damage by the DR. MATTHEW OPOKU PREMPEH V. SAMUEL GYAMFI) -

pg. 5 alleged defamatory statement. The Appellant averred that even if the statement complained of is defamatory (which it is denied), it amounts to a fair comment on matters of public interest, both international and local. Therefore, any opinion expressed by the Appellant was fair and not malicious. According to the Appellant, beyond stating that Seidu Yakubu Mba is an errand boy of the Respondent, whether within context or not, he never stated that the Respondent has misconducted himself or that he is not a law-abiding citizen or works with criminals by reason of his association with the said Seidu Yakubu Mba.

3.0 The Trial Court The core issues identified by the parties at the stage of Summons for Directions for trial were:

1. Whether or not, within the context created and advanced by the Defendant in the delivery of the press statement at the press conference, the statement complained of bears meanings which are defamatory of the Plaintiff;

2. Whether or not the statement complained of in paragraph 14 of the statement of Claim is defamatory;

3. Whether or not the pleas of fair comment and justification are available to the Defendant for making the statement complained of within the context created by the Defendant in the press statement;

4. Whether or not the Plaintiff is of the stature attributed to him by paragraphs 4,5,6,7,8. 9, and 10 of the amended Statement of Claim;

5. Whether or not the Defendant, on the 17/06/2019 on a radio programme on Asempa FM, insisted that the statement complained of was true and thus refused to retract same and render an apology to the Plaintiff; 6.Whether or not the Plaintiff has suffered any damage to his reputation;

7. Whether or not the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs he seeks.

The Respondent did not testify himself. By a power of attorney, the Respondent DR. MATTHEW OPOKU PREMPEH V. SAMUEL GYAMFI) -

pg. 6 appointed Haruna Alhassan as his lawful attorney. The power of attorney was exhibited as A. This was followed by a mountain of exhibits in support of the Respondent’s case. Exhibit C was produced as proof of the Respondent’s status as a Member of Parliament (MP) since 2009.

The Respondent’s attorney also exhibited his practice as a surgeon in Ghana and the United Kingdom and his role as an active member of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of the United Kingdom as Exhibit D.

Exhibit E was further produced to show that the Respondent is an alumnus of the prestigious Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University , where he studied Leadership and Government and was adjudged the 2020 Recipient of the Harvard Ministerial Medal of Achievement in recognition of his accomplishment in strengthening public education in Ghana.

To prove that the Respondent’s handwork has been recognised on several occasions, his lawful attorney also produced Exhibit F regarding the 2019 poll conducted by the Political Science Department of the University of Ghana , dubbed “Assessment of the 275 Members of Parliament (MPs) – Perspective from the Constituents”, which said polls declared the Respondent as the best performing Minister of Ghana.

Exhibit G, which was a copy of a news report, was further tended to show that the Respondent was adjudged the overall best Minister for 2017 by several award schemes, including the Ghana Entrepreneur and Corporate Executive Awards, where the Respondent was honoured by the United States of America’s Ambassador to Ghana at the time, Robert Porter Jackson.

To demonstrate that the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG) DR. MATTHEW OPOKU PREMPEH V. SAMUEL GYAMFI) -

pg. 7 recognised the attributes of the Respondent and conferred honours on him in 2019, and to show that the Respondent’s character had contributed to making the Ministry of Education the most successful ministry of the administration at the time, his lawful attorney produced Exhibit H.

A newspaper report, Exhibit J, was tendered in evidence to show that the Respondent was adjudged by Asempa FM, one of the leading radio stations in Accra, as the best performing Minister, in the company of the likes of Hon. Joe Ghartey, Alan John Kyeremanteng and Dan Kwaku Botwe.

Exhibit K, a news report, was produced to show that the Respondent is loved by the people of Manhyia South, whom he represents in Parliament, to the extent that he was acclaimed as the 2020 Parliamentary Candidate for the New Patriotic Party.

A copy of the Press Statement published by one of the country’s popular news portals, www.ghanaweb.com, which the Appellant read at the press conference held on 13/06/2019, was tendered in evidence as Exhibit L.

Exhibit “M” Series were copies of Court Notes and news report on the subject produced to show that the said Seidu Yakubu Mba, who at the time of the press conference had been arrested along with some other persons and was standing trial for the alleged offence of kidnapping, had been discharged together with three others by the Criminal Division of the High Court Accra, after the Attorney- General at the time had informed the court of its decision to substitute the charge sheet with a new one following its own investigations into the matter.

To prove that the malicious statement, within the context stated, was published and given extensive coverage in the traditional media as well as through highly DR. MATTHEW OPOKU PREMPEH V. SAMUEL GYAMFI) -

pg. 8 frequented online portals, various radio and television discussions, the Respondent’s attorney exhibited copies of the publication on some of the online portals as Exhibit “N” series.

This was followed by the production of Exhibit “P” Series, which was the Respondent’s demand for an apology and a retraction of the false and malicious statement from the Appellant, which the latter refused, insisting on a popular political afternoon talk show, “Eko si Sen?” on Asempa FM that the statement made was factual.

By a Supplementary Witness Statement filed on 28/10/2020 pursuant to leave granted by the court on 14/10/2020, the Respondent’s lawful attorney additionally tendered Exhibit “B” Series and Exhibit “D” Series as proof of the Respondent’s association with the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University and the professional and academic records as evidence of the Respondent’s profession as a surgeon, respectively.

On the part of the Appellant, he testified by himself and called two other witnesses. He tendered the Press Statement he read at the Press Conference held on 13/06/2019 as Exhibit 1.

In support of his testimony that the comments made by the members of the public on the statement complained of showed that the Respondent was not exposed to ridicule, hatred or contempt or that he was lowered in their estimation, Exhibit 2 was produced in evidence.

To confirm the Respondent’s association with Seidu Yakubu Mba, the Appellant tendered Exhibit 3, which was the news article published on Graphic Online “showing one of such invitations and/or arrest by the police, following DR. MATTHEW OPOKU PREMPEH V. SAMUEL GYAMFI) -

pg. 9 investigations on some occasions regarding some disturbances caused by he (sic) and ‘his boy’ during the Respondent’s campaign in Manhyia Constituency in

The testimony of DW1, Mahfuz Jibreel was the next to follow. Mahfuz Jibreel produced the same news article published on Graphic Online (supra) of his attack dated 30/11/2012, which was exhibited as 4.

4.0 Decision of the Court At the end of the trial, the High Court entered judgment in favour of the Respondent. The court held that the Appellant published defamatory statements against the Respondent with his publication and distribution of the press statement held on 13/06/2019. The learned trial judge awarded the Respondent GHC500,000.00 damages in compensation for the injury suffered by the Respondent on account of the defamatory statement. Cost of GHC40,000.00 was also awarded in favour of the Respondent. The court further ordered the Appellant to publish an unqualified apology and retraction of the defamatory statement within fourteen (14) days from the service of the Respondent’s Entry of

Nettled by the decision of the court below, the Appellant lodged this instant appeal based on the grounds set out in the notice of appeal.

5.0 Grounds of Appeal The grounds of appeal specified in the Notice of Appeal are as follows:

“a. That the judgment is against the weight of the evidence on record. DR. MATTHEW OPOKU PREMPEH V. SAMUEL GYAMFI) -

pg. 10 b. The trial judge erred in holding that the Plaintiff/Respondent discharged his burden of proof relative to all the elements needed to establish that the Defendant/Appellant defamed the Plaintiff/Respondent.

c. That the quantum of damages awarded against the Defendant/Appellant is excessive.

d. That the trial judge erred when he held that the Defendant/Appellant’s witness was not credible.

e. The trial judge misdirected himself in his consideration of the Defendant /Appellant’s defence of truth, occasioning a substantial miscarriage of justice to the Defendant/Appellant.

Particulars of Misdirection i. The court below misdirected itself when it stated that the Defendant/Appellant did not plead the defence of truth contrary to the pleadings of the Defendant/Appellant and the court’s own statement that the Defendant/Appellant pleaded justification.

ii. The court below misdirected itself when it stated that the defence of truth was introduced for the first time in the witness statement of the Defendant/Appellant.

iii. The Plaintiff/Respondent did not object to the portion of the Defendant/Appellant’s witness statement on the defence of truth on the basis that the Defendant/Appellant did not plead and particularise the defence of truth.

iv. The failure by the court below to appreciate that the defence of justification is one and the same as the defence of truth. DR. MATTHEW OPOKU PREMPEH V. SAMUEL GYAMFI) -

pg. 11 v. The evidence of the Defendant/Appellant’s personal knowledge of the Plaintiff/Respondent’s association with Seidu Mba in cross-examination was not controverted by counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent.

f. The trial judge’s cavalier and insufficient consideration of the Defendant/Appellant’s defence of fair comment has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice to the Defendant/Appellant.

g. Additional grounds of appeal to be filed upon receipt of a copy of the Record of Appeal.”

6.0 Applying the Law and Analysis My Lords, to the matter on appeal, grounds (a) (e) (b) and (c) will be analysed together. It should be observed that the particulars of error or the nature of the error committed by the trial judge in respect of grounds (d) and ground (f) to wit, “that the trial judge erred when he held that the Defendant/Appellant’s witness was not credible” and “the trial judge’s cavalier and insufficient consideration of the Defendant/Appellant’s defence of fair comment has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice to the Defendant/Appellant.” were not disclosed by the Appellant. Rule 8 (4) and (6) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 1997 (C.I. 19) provides as follows: