The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) has begun assessing allegations of extortion involving Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin following the submission of three separate petitions to the anti-corruption agency.
The OSP said it received a joint petition from two individuals, alongside two additional petitions from separate persons, all relating to allegations made against the Minority Leader by Ghana Gold Board (GoldBod) Chief Executive Officer, Sammy Gyamfi.
In a statement issued on Monday, August 24, the OSP said it had taken note of the allegations that have emerged publicly and would first determine whether the matter falls within its statutory mandate.
The anti-corruption agency said the assessment would also guide its decision on whether further investigative action is necessary.
The development adds a new layer to the escalating public dispute between Mr Gyamfi and Mr Afenyo-Markin, following the GoldBod CEO’s accusation that the Minority Leader engaged in extortion.
Mr Afenyo-Markin has denied the allegation and indicated that he intends to pursue legal action against the GoldBod CEO.
The dispute has unfolded alongside a broader disagreement over claims concerning losses linked to Ghana’s Domestic Gold Purchase Programme.
Mr Gyamfi has alleged that the programme recorded losses amounting to about GH¢22 billion, equivalent to approximately US$1.7 billion, in 2025.
The OSP’s announcement means the allegations will now undergo an initial jurisdictional assessment before the agency determines whether they warrant formal investigative action.
Meanwhile, the United Party has separately petitioned the Attorney-General and other anti-corruption and security institutions to investigate the extortion allegations against Mr Afenyo-Markin.
The petition was submitted by the party’s Communications Director, Solomon Owusu, and Legal Director, Andrew Appiah-Danquah.
The multiple petitions place increased institutional focus on the allegations, although the OSP has stressed that its current step is an assessment of the matter rather than a declaration that an investigation has been opened.
The agency is expected to determine whether the allegations fall within its legal mandate and whether the available information provides sufficient grounds for further action.
