In a recent legal development, National Security Minister Albert Kan Dapaah has declined to respond to a set of 17 questions presented to him by political activist Oliver Mawuse Barker-Vormawor. This refusal is based on grounds of national security confidentiality and the Minister's Oath of Secrecy.
The questions in question were part of an application filed by Barker-Vormawor and his legal team, led by Dr. Justice Srem Sai, at the High Court on February 13, 2024. This application was made in relation to a GHc10 million defamation suit brought against Barker-Vormawor by Albert Kan Dapaah.
In response to the request to admit to these facts, the Minister's legal representatives, led by Bright Otchere Adjekum, stated that Kan Dapaah refuses to respond to the questions "on the basis of National Security Confidentiality and his Oath of Secrecy."
As a result of this refusal, it has been reported that Barker-Vormawor's legal team may pursue further action, potentially heading to the Supreme Court. The case has been adjourned to June 19, 2024, and it is worth noting that while Barker-Vormawor was present in court, Kan Dapaah was absent on Thursday, March 21.
This legal dispute stems from allegations made by Barker-Vormawor regarding a meeting with National Security and government officials, during which he claims money was offered to him in exchange for halting his activism. These allegations were contested by the National Security Minister, leading to the defamation suit seeking damages and a retraction of the statements made by Barker-Vormawor.
The legal proceedings have seen both parties actively engaging with the court, with Barker-Vormawor and his legal team filing a Defence and counterclaims, and subsequently requesting the Minister to admit to 17 specific facts.
As this case continues to unfold, it remains a matter of legal significance and public interest. The intricacies of national security, freedom of expression, and the responsibilities of public officials are at the heart of this dispute. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly have implications beyond the individuals directly involved, shaping legal precedent and public discourse.
EIB Network's Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, has been diligently following these developments, providing insights into the legal complexities at play. The parties involved are set to return to court on February 20, 2024, as the case progresses.
The unfolding legal saga between National Security Minister Albert Kan Dapaah and political activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor continues to captivate attention, shedding light on the intersection of law, governance, and individual rights. As the case evolves, it underscores the importance of legal processes in addressing contentious issues and upholding the principles of justice and accountability.
*Below are questions the Plaintiff required Kan Dapaah to admit to*
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 the Plaintiff to carry out its decision (s) on the 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 the Plaintiff to coordinate the carrying out of its decisions on the 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 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.
-source starrfm | curated by Tetteh Belinda | Ghana Crimes
