Advertisement

Alfred Woyome , Mr Martin Amidu
Alfred Woyome , Mr Martin Amidu

Woyome files to stop Amidu from oral examination

There are doubts over the much-anticipated oral examination of businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome by the anti-corruption crusader, Mr Martin Amidu, at the Supreme Court today.

This development follows a motion on notice filed by Mr Woyome praying the Supreme Court to reverse its decision directing him to submit himself to oral examination by Mr Amidu.

The applicant is arguing that the order granting Mr Amidu leave to examine him and to execute the judgement sins against articles 2, 88, 130 and 134 of the 1992 Constitution and same ought to be reversed.

He has also filed a motion on notice for stay of proceedings pending the determination of his motion to reverse the court’s order directing him to avail himself today to be orally examined.

The motion on notice for stay of proceedings will be moved today, while 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 the reversal of the court’s decision, Mr Woyome said he was willing and able to satisfy the judgement debt and, therefore, 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.

The applicant 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.

“I am informed and verily believe same to be true that in terms of Article 128 (2) of the 1992 Constitution, the Supreme Court is duly constituted for its work by not less than five justices of the Supreme Court when it sits to determine a cause of matter, except as provided for in Article 133 of the 1992 Constitution when it exercises its review jurisdiction,” he said.

He said he believed that a single justice of the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to interpret the 1992 Constitution.

The applicant further argued that the scope and effect or meaning given to Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution by Mr Justice Anin Yeboah as a single justice raised a genuine and fair question for interpretative opinion of a properly constituted Supreme Court.

“That I am informed and verily believe same to be true that sitting as a single justice, His Lordship Justice Anin Yeboah is vested with a limited jurisdiction and has no jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution, grant reliefs not sought by the applicant and to depart from or fail to apply binding decisions rendered by panels of the Supreme Court with full jurisdiction and which held to the effect that where an enactment had prescribed a special procedure by which something was to be done, it was that procedure alone that was to be followed,” the affidavit in support noted.

The decision

The Supreme Court, on November 16, 2016, granted permission to Mr Martin 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.

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.

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 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.

#Woyome

Connect With Us : 0242202447 | 0551484843 | 0266361755 | 059 199 7513 |