High Court Defers Judgment in Kan Dapaah’s GH¢10 Million Defamation Case

The High Court has deferred judgment in the defamation case filed by former National Security Minister Albert Kan Dapaah against activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor, after ruling that the scheduled date fell within the judiciary’s New Year vacation.

The court, presided over by Emmanuel Adu-Owusu Agyeman, had earlier fixed January 6, 2026, for delivery of judgment in the case. However, when the matter was called, the court said it could not proceed, despite the judgment being ready.

Justice Adu-Owusu Agyeman explained that the date fell within the period covered by the New Year vacation of the judiciary. He cited Order 79 rule 4 sub-rule c of CI 47, which restricts court sittings during the vacation period unless specific exceptions apply.

According to the judge, although all parties had previously agreed on the judgment date, the court had since been alerted to the fact that the vacation technically ended on January 6, 2026. He told the court that, in law, judicial work could not be undertaken on that date.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Otchere Adjekum, reminded the court that the matter had been fixed for judgment at the last adjournment in 2025. The judge acknowledged this but stated that the court had erred in setting the date.

As a result, the case has been adjourned to March 2, 2026, for the delivery of judgment.

The lawsuit was filed by Mr Kan Dapaah following public statements attributed to Mr Barker-Vormawor, a leading figure in the FixTheCountry Movement. The activist had alleged that the then National Security Minister and other government officials met him and offered him money, reportedly in the region of one million United States dollars, to stop his activism against the government.

Mr Kan Dapaah publicly denied the allegations and subsequently initiated a defamation action against Mr Barker-Vormawor. He is seeking general damages of GH¢10 million, including aggravated or exemplary damages, over what he says were defamatory statements.

In addition to damages, the former minister is asking the court to order a retraction and apology and to grant a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from making similar statements in the future.

The allegations made by Mr Barker-Vormawor and the defences raised by both parties have been contested throughout the trial. The court has yet to pronounce on the merits of the case. All claims remain subject to judicial determination.