Oral examination of Woyome put on hold
The oral examination of businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome by the anti-corruption crusader, Mr Martin Amidu, did not come off at the Supreme Court in Accra yesterday.
Advertisement
That was because the motion on notice by Mr Woyome for stay of proceedings pending the determination of his motion to reverse the court’s order directing him to avail himself to be orally examined was served on Mr Amidu yesterday morning, while the Attorney-General was served late last Wednesday.
Mr Woyome is seeking to reverse a Supreme Court order directed at him to avail himself for oral examination by Mr Amidu.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, therefore, adjourned the case to Thursday, December 1, 2016 for Mr Woyome’s lawyer to move the motion for stay of proceedings.
Mr Justice Yeboah also directed all the parties to file the necessary responses before the next hearing.
‘Don’t let me fall into a trap’
Earlier, the presiding judge had said he was avoiding the situation where Mr Woyome would end up stating that he was being persecuted by the Supreme Court.
“Don’t let me fall into a trap for your client to say I’m persecuting him,” Mr Justice Yeboah said to Woyome’s lawyer, Mr Ken Anku, when the lawyer attempted to move the motion after Mr Amidu said he had been short served.
Mr Anku responded by explaining that he stood to argue his case because the court had directed him to rise and address it.
He, nonetheless, left the issue to the discretion of the court, which eventually gave Mr Amidu and the Attorney-General ample time to prepare their responses to Mr Woyome’s application.
The motion
A motion on notice praying the Supreme Court to reverse its decision directing Mr Woyome to submit himself to oral examination by Mr Amidu was filed on November 24, 2016.
The applicant is arguing that the order granting Mr Amidu leave to examine him and execute the judgement sins against articles 2, 88, 130 and 134 of the1992 Constitution and same ought to be reversed.
The substantive application seeking to reverse the court’s decision will be moved on Tuesday, December 6, 2016.
Affidavit in support
In an affidavit in support of his motion for reversal of the court’s decision, Mr Woyome said he was willing and able to satisfy the judgement debt and, accordingly, the application by Mr Amidu was misconceived and mischievous.
It said the October 19, 2016 Supreme Court order was directed at the Attorney-General’s office for the recovery of a GH¢51.2 million judgement debt from him.
According to the applicant, Mr Amidu had no capacity to enforce or seek to execute an order not directed at him (Mr Amidu) but directed at a specific official of state and officer of the court.
He further noted that there was evidence on record to prove that the Attorney-General’s office had taken positive steps to enforce the orders and had since retrieved part of the judgement debt.
Article 134 of the 1992 Constitution
According to Mr Woyome, per Article 134 of the 1992 Constitution, a justice of the Supreme Court, sitting as a single judge, could only exercise power vested in the Supreme Court not involving the decision of a cause or matter.
The decision
The Supreme Court, on November 16, 2016, granted permission to Mr Amidu to orally examine Mr Woyome over his assets.
The court’s directive was aimed at eventually retrieving the GH¢51.2 million judgement debt paid to Woyome.
Mr Justice 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 initiated the action to retrieve the money.
Mr Alfred Woyome with some sympathisers at the court premises
Allegations expunged
Mr Amidu had made a number of allegations against the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, and President John Dramani Mahama in paragraphs 10-16 of his affidavit but the court expunged those allegations.
Background
Mr Amidu applied to the court to orally examine Mr Woyome after the Attorney-General’s office had 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 all prayed the court not to entertain Mr Amidu because he had no locus standi to file the very application, as well as a number of steps had been taken by the A-G’s office to retrieve the money.
#Woyome
