The Supreme Court has rejected an application by activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor, who aimed to use the court’s authority to compel National Security Minister Albert Kan Dapaah to answer 17 questions in an ongoing defamation case at the high court. Albert Kan Dapaah has filed a GH₵10 million defamation suit against Barker-Vormawor, alleging that the activist falsely claimed he was offered $1,000,000 by cabinet to cease leading the #FixTheCountry movement to organize protests against the government.
Kan Dapaah declined to answer the 17 questions posed by the appellant at the high court. The appellant, argued that these questions are factual and would clarify the suit filed by the National Security Minister.
Therefore, the appellant requested the Supreme Court to issue an order for the minister to provide information, facts, and documents in accordance with Article 19(5) of the 1992 Constitution. Lawyers for Oliver Barker-Vormawor also sought the court’s decision on whether the minister (Plaintiff/Respondent) should disclose specific facts to aid the trial at the high court. Dr. Justice Srem Sai referenced Order 23 of CI 47 in his argument to support his request for the Supreme Court to compel the National Security Minister to produce documents.
Typically, the Attorney General’s Department should represent the National Security Minister in court. The minister declined to provide information, citing national security confidentiality and an oath of secrecy. He argued that answering those questions would compromise his official duties and the security of the state. However, Albert Kan Dapaah’s lawayer Bright Okyere Agyekum contended that the appellant did not correctly invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
He referenced Article 135, arguing that the appellant failed to specify the official documents they wanted the court to compel the National Security Minister to produce. Additionally, he noted that the appellant requested facts rather than specific documents. He thus prayed the court to dismiss the application because the appellant is “on a fishing expedition.
Article 135 of the 1992 Constitution clearly states that applications for the provision of official documents will be heard in chambers. However, according to the Chief Justice presiding over the case, the panel opted to hear the matter in open court because the appellant did not specify particular official documents.
The court viewed the questions posed to the National Security Minister by Oliver Barker-Vormawor’s lawyers as broad inquiries lacking specific dates and times. Chief Justice Gertrude Tokornu, in discussing the challenges the court faced with the application, noted that even if the court had agreed and approved the application, it would have been “challenging to formulate the order.”
She questioned why the appellant approached the Supreme Court under Article 135 but did not specify the particular official documents they sought to be disclosed by the Respondent. The court also determined that Article 135, which the appellant relied on in approaching the Supreme Court, is not intended for fishing expeditions.
They referenced the Watergate controversy in the United States, which led to President Nixon’s resignation. The panel of five judges stated that in that instance, similar legal provisions were invoked to request the production of tapes and recordings, a step the activist and his lawyers did not take in this case. Chief Justice Gertrude Tokornu, delivering the ruling, stated, “Upon reviewing the application, the court found no mention of specific documents. The application is considered unsupported and dismissed.”
Following the ruling, the defamation case in the high court will proceed without the National Security Minister responding to those seventeen questions
