The Accra High Court yesterday awarded costs of GH¢3,000 against the convener of #FixThe Country Movement, Mr Oliver Barker-Vormawor, for failing to file his defence in the GH¢10 million defamation case against him.
The court subsequently granted him additional one week to file his defence and adjourned hearing to January 24.
The Minister of National Security, Mr Albert Kan Dapaah (plaintiff) and Barker-Vormawor, the defendant, were in court when the case was called.
Counsel for the defendant, Dr Justice Srem Sai, told the court that his client could not file his defence because of some challenges.
In his response, counsel for the defendant, Otchere Adjekum, asked the court, presided over by Justice Joseph Adu Agyemang to give judgement in default, but the judge declined the request.
Meanwhile, lawyers for Barker-Vormaworare challenging the court’s ruling on their application to have the substantive applications dismissed.
Their motion for stay of proceedings pending appeal which was initially fixed for hearing on January 10, has been adjourned to January 24 for consideration.
Mr Barker-Vormawor stated in a Facebook post that Mr Dapaah offered him and others US$1 million in order to stop #FixThe Country Movement activism.
According to Mr Barker-Vormawor, “they went as far as offering us US$1 million, they offered
us a committee appointment, set up a committee and appoint us to government positions in order to
stop this activism. This was made directly to me and other leaders of #FixThe Country Movement … This conversation we had with the Minister of National Security, the Minister of Finance and a Brigadier General at a safe home.”
The National Security Minister denied the allegations and caused his counsel to issue a writ of summons against Barker-Vormawor.
Mr Dapaah is seeking reliefs from the court, including a declaration that the words uttered by the defendant were defamatory of the plaintiff.
The minister urged the court to award GH¢10 million as general damages, aggravated and or exemplary damages for defamation for the words uttered by the defendant.
Mr Dapaah is also demanding an apology for and retraction of the words complained of and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from repeating similar or other defamatory words against the plaintiff and costs.
BY MALIK SULLEMANA
