GoldBod CEO, Sammy Gyamfi threatens legal action over GH¢200m disappearance claims

The Chief Executive Officer of the Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod), Sammy Gyamfi, has warned individuals and media platforms against publishing or circulating what he describes as false and defamatory allegations linking him to an alleged disappearance of GH¢200 million involving a man identified as Dominic Bonsu.

In a legal notice dated August 5, 2026, Mr Gyamfi’s lawyers described claims circulating on traditional and social media that Mr Bonsu was or had been his bodyguard and had absconded with GH¢200 million belonging to GoldBod as “entirely false, malicious, reckless and devoid of any factual or legal basis.”

The lawyers have directed all persons to immediately stop originating, publishing, republishing, transmitting or otherwise disseminating the allegations in any form.

They warned that Mr Gyamfi reserves the right to initiate civil proceedings against any individual or entity involved in publishing or sharing the claims.

According to the legal notice, Mr Gyamfi has never met, known, engaged or maintained any personal or professional relationship with Mr Bonsu.

The lawyers further stated that Mr Bonsu has never served as Mr Gyamfi’s bodyguard, personal security officer, employee, agent, representative or associate.

They also rejected claims that Mr Bonsu absconded with GH¢200 million belonging to GoldBod, describing the allegation as “false, fabricated, malicious, and wholly without factual or legal foundation.”

The legal team maintained that neither Mr Gyamfi nor GoldBod entrusted, transferred or paid GH¢200 million, or any other public funds, to Mr Bonsu.

They added that any publication suggesting Mr Gyamfi authorised, facilitated, participated in, condoned or benefited from alleged financial misconduct was false, defamatory and actionable under the law.

On reports that a company linked to Mr Bonsu may have held a licence issued by GoldBod, the lawyers argued that such a licence does not establish any personal, professional or business relationship between the two individuals.

The notice cautioned that every new publication or republication of the allegations could constitute a separate actionable offence, potentially exposing authors, publishers, broadcasters, editors and administrators to legal liability.

It added that relying on information obtained from social media or third parties would not serve as a defence in a defamation action.

Mr Gyamfi’s lawyers said they had been instructed to pursue all available civil remedies, including claims for general, aggravated and exemplary damages, injunctive relief and costs, against any person or organisation that continues to publish or circulate the allegations.

The notice was issued without prejudice to all rights and remedies available to their client.