Legal practitioner Oliver Barker-Vormawor has announced plans to apply to have the High Court’s decision, which awarded GH₵5.1 million in damages to former National Security Minister Albert Kan Dapaah, set aside, arguing that the process leading to the ruling was unjust.

Reacting to the March 2 judgment in a Facebook post, the activist pointed to what he termed procedural flaws in the way the matter was handled.

He contended that his lawyers were prevented from completing their cross-examination of Kan Dapaah and further alleged that although his witness statement was duly filed, the court declined to consider it before delivering its verdict.

"Of course we will seek to set it aside. But he can take his victory lap," Barker-Vormawor wrote.

Background of the case

On Monday, the High Court in Accra awarded GH₵5 million in general damages against Barker-Vormawor in favour of Kan Dapaah in a defamation suit.

Additionally, the court imposed costs of GH₵100,000 against the defendant.

In delivering the ruling, Justice (Rev.) Joseph Owusu Adu-Agyeman granted all the reliefs sought by the plaintiff but reduced the compensation from GH₵10 million to GH₵5 million.

Kan Dapaah had initiated the lawsuit over allegations that he attempted to bribe the activist.

Barker-Vormawor had publicly claimed that the former minister, together with certain government officials, met him and offered him money to halt his activism against the administration.

Before the judgment was delivered, his legal team filed an application seeking to relist their Statement of Defence and Witness Statement, both of which had earlier been struck out.

However, the court dismissed the application, describing it as inconsistent with the applicable rules.

Consequently, Barker-Vormawor stood before the court without a recognised defence at the time the judgment was pronounced.

Explaining the sequence of events on Facebook, he stated that following the appointment of his original lawyer as Deputy Attorney General, he sought and obtained an adjournment to secure new representation.

Upon taking over the case, the new counsel requested time to review proceedings and submit a witness statement, but the judge declined the request and directed that cross-examination should proceed.

"He missed Court one day, and when we got the record, the judge had struck out my defense and given a date to give judgement," Barker-Vormawor wrote.

"We filed a motion to relist the defense and filed my witness statement and that of my other witness. We also filed a motion to arrest judgment. Judge refused it. Went ahead to give Kan Dapaah judgment."

He further urged members of the public to examine the witness statement he said the court refused to admit into consideration.

"You can read my witness statement; that the court refused to consider if you want!" he wrote.