The United Party has petitioned six state institutions to investigate allegations that the Minority Leader, Alexander Kwamena Afenyo-Markin, attempted to extort money from the Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board, Sammy Gyamfi.
The joint petition dated August 23, 2026, signed by Solomon Owusu, Director of Communications and Spokesperson, and Andrew Appiah-Danquah, Director of Legal and Constitutional Affairs of the party, was addressed to the Attorney-General, the Special Prosecutor, the Speaker of Parliament, CHRAJ, the Inspector-General of Police and the Director-General of the CID.
Genesis of Allegation
According to the petition, the matter stems from a public statement Mr Gyamfi delivered at the Government Accountability Series on August 19, 2026, in response to allegations made by Mr Afenyo-Markin about the operations and financial position of the Gold Board.
In the concluding part of that statement, Mr Gyamfi alleged in substance that persons engaged in a calculated campaign of reputational attacks use false allegations to tarnish their targets, expecting them to succumb to pressure and submit to what he described as “compulsory arbitration,” through which they obtain financial benefit.
The petitioners say although the remarks were partly in the plural, they were in substance a direct response to Mr Afenyo-Markin.
Subsequently, Eric Adjei, CEO of the National Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme and an associate of Mr Gyamfi, is said to have publicly alleged that Mr Afenyo-Markin was engaged in extortionist conduct and was associated with a team that uses Right to Information (RTI) requests to obtain information from public institutions, after which persons connected to the enterprise allegedly assumed the role of “negotiators.”
It has subsequently been publicly attributed directly to Mr Gyamfi that Mr Afenyo-Markin attempted to demand one million United States dollars from him.
The petitioners note the cumulative effect is an allegation that the monetary demand was linked to actual or threatened reputational attacks, adverse publicity, political pressure or parliamentary action, or an offer to discontinue such conduct in exchange for payment.
What Petitioners Want
The United Party says it does not have the communications, recordings or electronic evidence and cannot determine the truth of the allegations, but argues they are “far too serious to be dismissed as ordinary political rhetoric.”
They argue if true, it may disclose an attempt to use political standing and parliamentary influence to extract private financial benefit; if false, it is a serious assault on the reputation of the Minority Leader and Parliament.
They have therefore requested:
– That Sammy Gyamfi be invited to provide a comprehensive formal statement stating the precise nature of the alleged demand, amount, date, place, person who communicated it, words used and consideration attached.
– That Eric Adjei be invited to explain whether his claims are based on first-hand knowledge, information from Mr Gyamfi or documentary evidence.
– That Mr Afenyo-Markin be invited to respond fully, with the presumption of innocence and all constitutional protections.
– That any alleged intermediary or “negotiator” be identified and investigated.
– That all phone records, call logs, audio recordings, emails, payment instructions and device data be secured.
The petitioners further asked the AG and investigative bodies to determine whether the facts disclose attempted extortion, corruption, abuse of public office, conspiracy or abetment under Sections 17, 18, 151 and 239-247 of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).
They asked the OSP to assess corruption jurisdiction, CHRAJ to probe abuse of power and breach of the code of conduct for public officers, the Police CID to open a criminal inquiry, and the Speaker to refer aspects touching the dignity of Parliament to the appropriate mechanism without prejudicing a criminal probe.
“Parliamentary privilege cannot operate as immunity for an alleged private demand for money, attempted extortion, corruption, conspiracy or abuse of public office occurring outside the legitimate business of Parliament,” the petition states.
“Silence by the institutions of state in the face of an allegation of this magnitude would create the dangerous impression that political prominence places a person beyond scrutiny. Premature condemnation would be equally unjust,” they added.
The petitioners said they do not assert criminal liability has been established and are only asking that those who made the public allegations be required to place their evidence before competent institutions.
