Sammy Gyamfi’s case has made headlines as the Gold Board CEO is currently the subject of a petition submitted to the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) by private citizen Eric Dumenu Akatsi, following a viral video that captured him dashing out US dollars to Patricia Oduro-Koranteng, popularly known as Agraada.
Responding to questions about the legal weight of the video on Joynews, Christian Malm-Hesse clarified that while splashing cash in public may raise eyebrows, it does not in itself amount to corruption under Ghanaian law.
On the strength of the petition filed, the lawyer emphasized that the petitioner is invoking Article 41(f) of the 1992 Constitution, which enjoins every citizen to protect and preserve public property and to expose misuse and waste of public funds.
“The real test will be whether the facts of Sammy Gyamfi’s case meet the threshold required under this constitutional clause. If the petitioner fails to establish that, the petition cannot hold,” Malm-Hesse explained.
He further referenced Article 218 of the Constitution, which outlines the functions of CHRAJ, including investigating allegations of corruption, abuse of power, and unfair treatment by public officers. According to him, if the case is framed within these areas and the petitioner is able to present credible evidence, the petition could proceed.
However, Malm-Hesse stressed that the burden of proof lies squarely with the petitioner. “If you are saying he has all those funds, you must prove it. A multitude of suspicion can never materialize into evidence,” he emphasized.
The lawyer also weighed in on the petitioner’s refusal to publicly disclose the source of his intelligence, noting that while it is not mandatory to reveal sources during media interviews, CHRAJ would require the evidence during official investigations.
“He must bring that to light in the course of the proceedings. If he has received intelligence from confidential sources, especially within the banking sector, issues of privacy and legal boundaries may also come into play,” he said.
On whether CHRAJ could compel individuals or institutions to disclose information as part of the probe, Malm-Hesse noted that such powers lie within the commission’s authority but must be handled within the scope of the law.
Sammy Gyamfi’s case continues to draw national attention, especially as it highlights broader concerns about transparency, public accountability, and the handling of alleged misconduct involving public officers. The outcome of CHRAJ’s investigation will be closely watched as a test of Ghana’s commitment to fighting corruption and protecting public resources.
