Amidu, Woyome to slug it out during oral examination on November 24 (VIDEO)
The Supreme Court yesterday granted permission to the anti-corruption crusader, Mr Martin Alamisi Amidu, to orally examine businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome over the latter’s assets.
Advertisement
The court directive is aimed at eventually retrieving the GH¢51.2 million judgement debt paid to Mr Woyome by the state.
Mr Woyome has subsequently been ordered to appear before the court on Thursday, November 24, 2016 to be orally examined by Mr Amidu.
A visibly upset Mr Woyome had a lengthy chat with his lawyer before leaving the court premises.
His followers did not take kindly to the media taking pictures of him, as they cast aspersions on journalists.
Below is a video of Mr Woyome's response (Part One)
{youtube}FizqO33u-HY{/youtube}
VIDEOS BY ENOCH DARFAH FRIMPONG
The decision
The presiding judge, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, said Mr Amidu had the right, under Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution, to invoke the original jurisdiction of the court to retrieve the money on behalf of the state.
He said Mr Amidu had locus standi, especially when he had initiated the action to retrieve the money.
Arguing on the principles of probity and accountability, the court held that the 1992 Constitution embodied the will and aspirations of the people and for that reason Mr Amidu was entitled to orally examine Mr Woyome.
According to the court, there was nothing on record to show there was an execution process in motion because the court had struck out the Attorney-General’s (A-G’s) request to orally examine Mr Woyome under Order 46 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47).
The court then moved to offer Mr Amidu the opportunity to execute the court’s July 29, 2014 judgement to the benefit of all Ghanaians.
Part Two of Mr Woyome's reponse
{youtube}QMQmG-uMzTo{/youtube}
Money paid
Describing the money paid by Woyome so far as paltry, the court said for two years the A-G’s Office had been lax in retrieving the money.
On April 6, 2016, the A-G initiated garnishee proceedings to issue against the managers of ADB Bank, Uni Bank (Ghana) Limited and UT Bank, Woyome’s bankers.
So far, the garnishee has yielded the following amounts; GH¢966.58, GH¢29,515.95, GH¢1,008.70, US$98.17, US$32,779.68, US$223.08 and Euros 1,226.72 which have since been paid into the bank account of the Attorney-General’s Office at the Bank of Ghana, following an order to that effect granted by Mr Justice Yeboah.
Wayome has refunded an additional GH¢4 million, representing part payment of the GH¢51.2 million owed the state.
He has, through his lawyers, promised to pay the outstanding balance by quarterly instalments of GH¢5 million, commencing April 1, 2017.
According to the A-G’s affidavit in opposition to Mr Amidu’s application, prior to the application for leave to examine Mr Woyome, the A-G’s office had taken several steps to enforce the orders of the Supreme Court.
The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, said on January 8, 2015, her outfit filed a writ of Fifa and renewed it on January 16, 2016 and attached one residential property at Tesano, House No 16B, 6th Street, Tesano; one residential property at Kpehe, two residential properties at Trassaco, Accra, a quarry at Maafi, Volta Region, and vehicles and equipment.
However, interpleaders have been filed by UT Bank in respect of the two residential properties situated at Trassaco and the one situated at Kpehe, while Anator Holdings Company Limited has also filed an interpleader in respect of the quarry at Maafi.
The state is also contesting those claims in court.
Part Three of the response
{youtube}CcBUbqDmbr0{/youtube}
Allegations expunged
Mr Amidu made a number of allegations against Mrs Appiah-Opong and President John Dramani Mahama in paragraphs 10-16 of his affidavit but the court expunged those allegations.
One of the allegations was that the President had allegedly directed Mrs Appiah-Opong to withdraw the application to orally examine Mr Woyome.
According to Mr Justice Yeboah, those depositions offended Rule 8 of Order 20 of C.I. 47 which refers to “scandalous and irrelevant matter in affidavit”.
He said he was “not comfortable” with those aspects of Mr Amidu’s depositions and, accordingly, struck them out as “scandalous”.
One of the reasons he alluded to was that Mr Amidu failed to disclose the source of those allegations.
Background
Mr Amidu had applied to the court to orally examine Mr Woyome after the A-G’s Office applied to discontinue an application seeking to orally examine Mr Woyome.
Displeased with the state’s decision, Mr Amidu applied to orally examine Woyome in his (Mr Amidu’s) capacity as the plaintiff.
However, lawyers for the state and Mr Woyome opposed Mr Amidu in separate applications.
They both prayed the court not to entertain Mr Amidu because he had no locus standi to file the very application and the fact that a number of steps had been taken by the A-G’s Office to retrieve the money.
But the court held a different view and ruled that Mr Amidu had locus to orally examine the businessman.
#Woyome