SC to rule on whether Kan Dapaah should answer “national security” questions posed by Baker-Vormawor

The Supreme Court will today, Wednesday, July 10, deliver a ruling on whether the National Security Minister, Albert Kan Dapaah should answer some 17 questions put to him by a lawyer for political activist, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, in an ongoing defamation case at a High Court in Accra.

This come after the National Security Minister had accused the Convener of the FixTheCountry Movement, Oliver Barker-Vormawor of defamation when he alleged that some National Security operatives and government officials had offered him money to stop his activism against the government.

Subsequently, a GHc10 million defamation suit was filed against him by the National Security Minister.

But the current action at the apex court is to order the Minister to respond to some questions of facts which Mr Baker-Vormawor insists would put clarity on the suit against him at the High Court

Oliver Barker-Vormawor and his lawyers are hoping that the Supreme Court will compel the National Security Minister to answer questions he had declined to answer at the High Court citing national security concerns.

Find below the questions Mr Barker-Vormawor is demanding answers to:

The Political activist, Oliver Barker-Vormawor has filed an application at the High Court seeking the National Security Minister to admit to some 17 questions.

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 make a decision on how to handle, deal with or treat the Defendant.
7. That the National Security Council did make 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 Plaintiff to carry out its decision (s) on 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 Plaintiff to coordinate the carrying out of its decisions on 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 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.

ALSO READ:

7-year-old electrocuted at Bibiani

Minority calls for a halt in the “opaque” recruitment into security…