Barker-Vormawor attempt to get Kan Dapaah answer 17 questions fails at Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has dismissed an application filed by activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor, which sought to compel National Security Minister Albert Kan Dapaah to answer 17 questions in the ongoing GHC 10 million defamation case at the high court.

The panel presided over by the Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo was of the view that those questions posed to the minister were too broad and lacking in detail.

She further held that the application did not reference identifiable documents and was therefore unsupported.

In September 2023, the National Security Minister sued Oliver Barker-Vormawor over allegations that the minister and other government officials tried to bribe him (Vormawor) to stop his activism.

Subsequently, Oliver dragged the National Security Minister, Albert Kan-Dapaah, to the Supreme Court to compel him to answer the 17 questions posed to him.

He argued that an order of the court in this regard would clarify the suit filed against him at the High Court by the minister.

When the case was called On Wednesday, Dr. Justice Srem Sai cited Order 23 of CI 47 to support the request for the Supreme Court to compel the minister to produce the documents.

On his part, Bright Okyere Agyekum who is counsel for the minister, told the court that the appellant failed to properly invoke the court's jurisdiction and did not specify the official documents sought and thereby described the move as a "fishing expedition."

In its ruling, the apex court upheld the respondent's argument to the effect that Article 135 of the Constitution enjoins the applicant to state the specific official documents they wanted to be disclosed by the Respondent.

Referring the application to the infamous Watergate controversy in the US, their Lordships established that the applicant in that case asked for some tapes and recordings to be produced which counsel in the current motion failed to do.

The court added that the application did not reference identifiable documents and was therefore unsupported.

Owing to the above, the Supreme Court dismissed the application, allowing the defamation case at the high court to proceed without requiring the National Security Minister to answer the 17 questions.

Below are the 17 questions that the activist sought to compel the National Security minister to answer;

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 Plaintiff to carry out its decision (s) on 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 Plaintiff to coordinate the carrying out of its decisions on 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.

Background

In September 2023, the National Security Minister sued Oliver Barker-Vormawor over allegations that the minister and other government officials tried to bribe him (Vormawor) to stop his activism.

Mr. Vormawor, who's also the Executive Director of the Democratic Accountability Lab, organizers of the recent #OccupyJulorbiHouse protest, stated on September 22, 2023, that he was offered $ 1 million and juicy government appointments to forfeit his activism - a claim he says is backed by evidence.

In his affidavit in support, the Minister admits that there were two cordial meetings that he convened as National Security Minister to give audience to FixTheCountry activists in the interest of peace.

He thus states emphatically that there were no inducements or threats of any sort made to Oliver or any member of the group of activists present.

He thus maintains that the allegations by Mr. Vormawor are defamatory and is thus seeking GHC 10,000,000.00 in damages.