Friday, March 30, 2012

I saw soldier's physically abuse Mobilla - Witness

March 16, 2012 (Page 3)

A Detective Sergeant,hasd testified in the trial of three soldiers accused of killing Alhaji Issa Mobilla, a former Northern Regional Chairman of the Convention People’s Party (CPP) and described how two of the soldiers physically abused the deceased.
According to Mensah Kpligi, Corporal Yaw Appiah and Private Eric Modzaka, subjected Mobilla to both physical and verbal abuse on December 9, 2004.
A third accused person, Private Seth Goka, is currently on the run.
Led by a Chief State Attorney, Ms Penelope Marmattah, to testify, the witness told the court that Appiah, apart from subjecting Mobilla to verbal abuse, ordered Mobilla to suspend with both hands on the ground with legs in the air.
He said Modzaka used a nim tree stick to hit Mobilla’s chest several times but he was challenged by counsel for the accused persons, Mr Thaddeus Sory of making up false stories.
According to the witness, he could not state his evidence in his earlier statements because he had been intimidated and demoted by his former boss.
The witness said an alibi put up by Modzaka also turned out to be false.
The following transpired between Mr Sory and Mr Kpligi during cross examination:
Mr Sory: Did you know how old Mobilla was at the time of his death?
Mr Kpligi: Yes my Lord. He was 50 years.
Mr Sory: I am telling you that with Mobilla’s age, he had to be tied against an object to be able to stay in that position.
Mr Kpligi: He was not tied but he was able to take it.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice Mustapha Habib Logoh, adjourned sitting to March 16, 2012 to enable Mr Sory to continue with his cross examination.
At its last sitting, the Accra Fast Track High Court granted leave to the prosecution to file additional evidence in the matter.
Alhaji Mobilla was arrested by the police on December 9, 2004 for allegedly supplying the youth in Tamale with guns to foment trouble.
While in custody, the police claimed they received information that his followers and sympathisers were mobilising to free him.
Mobilla was consequently transferred from police cells to the Kamina Military Barracks and handed over to the three accused persons.
According to the prosecution, Alhaji Mobilla died in military custody three hours after he had been handed over to the accused persons, who were on duty that day.
The pathologist’s report revealed that Alhaji Mobilla was sent to the hospital dead and that he died from multiple wounds.

Owusu Bempah's sympathisers dribbled - As police fail to arraign him

March 16, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)

SYMPATHISERS of the Director of Operations of Friends of Nana Konadu Agyemang Rawlings (FONKAR), Ernest Owusu Bempah, were today disappointed when security operatives failed to arraign Bempah before the Osu District Magistrate’s Court.
Scores of sympathisers mostly members of FONKAR, reporters and lawyers thronged the court premises before 9.00 a.m. with prior knowledge that Bempah was to be arraigned before the court for publishing false news.
Bempah, was picked up by officials of the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) on Wednesday, March 14, 2012 for questioning on his claims that the First Lady, Mrs. Ernestina Naadu Mills had allegedly received $5 million from a businessman, Mr Alfred Agbesi Woyome.
News trickled in earlier in the day that Bempah was likely to be arraigned before court charged with publishing false news with the intent to cause fear and panic.
His sympathisers, therefore, decided to form groups and wait at the various courts in the event that their hero is arraigned before any of the courts.
However, Bempah’s sympathisers left the court disappointed after the court clerk announced around 1:30 p.m. that the court had officially closed for the day.
Some left the court premises immediately looking visibly disappointed while others hanged around with the hope Bempah might be brought.
One of the sympathisers walked away saying he will be at the court premises daily until Bempah was brought.
Reporters and pockets of supporters who hanged around however eventually gave up waiting after it became evident Bempah would not be arraigned at that particular moment.
Bempah’s lawyers told reporters they were yet to make contact with their client.
They also expressed disappointment after waiting endlessly for the arrival of their client in court.

Retiring age of State Attorneys - Court to decide on April 12

March 15, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)

THE Accra Fast Track High Court will on April 12, 2012 decide whether or not to refer the issue on the retirement age of State Attorneys to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
The court’s decision will have a bearing on the locus of a Chief State Attorney, Mr. Anthony Gyambiby, who is being challenged as not being eligible to continue prosecuting a criminal case against a former Minister of Information and eight others others on the grounds that he had attained the compulsory retirement age of 60.
The defence team had argued that Mr. Gyambiby had no locus to continue prosecuting the case because he had attained the compulsory retirement age of 60 and had no authorization to continue with the case.
The court, presided over by Mr. Justice Charles Quist fixed the date after defence and the state’s legal team had argued their cases.
A former Minister of Information, Stephen Asamoah-Boateng, his wife, Zuleika and seven others have been charged with conspiracy to defraud the State.
Other accused persons are Kofi Asamoah-Boateng, former Director of Finance, Ministry of Information and National Orientation, Frank Agyekum, a Former Deputy Minister of Information and National Orientation, Dominic A. Sampong, Former Acting Chief Director, Ministry of Information and National Orientation, Kwabena Denkyira, a Deputy Director of Finance and Administration of the Ministry, Prosper Arku of Supreme Procurement Agencies Limited and Yasmine Domua, a businesswoman.
Also in court is Supreme Procurement Agencies Limited, an entity.
The accused persons are alleged to have conspired to defraud the State of GHC86,915.85 in renovation works undertaken at the Ministerial Block of the Ministry during Asamoah-Boateng’s tenure in office.
They have all pleaded not guilty and admitted to GHC10,000 bail each with a surety.
An affidavit in support of the motion challenging the retention of Mr. Gyambiby as the prosecutor in the case and sworn by Mr D.A.Y. Sampong, the fifth accused person in the case, said Mr Gyambiby was born on November 28, 1947 in Ghana.
Sampong said the prosecutor was 64 years old and that in 2007, Mr Gyambiby attained the age of 60 and therefore retired from public service.
He stated that Mr Gyambiby could be engaged on contract basis by the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General’s Department through the Public Service Commission as a Consultant or contractor based on contract but not as a Chief State Attorney.
The accused person said Mr. Gyambiby ought to have indicated to the court that
he was on contract and ought to have shown the court the contract from
the Public Service Commission before prosecuting the matter.
He further deposed that Mr. Gyambiby ought to show the court his four years contract
documents to indicate his capacity to appear before the court and prosecute since he had attained age 60.
The fifth accused person said Mr Gyambiby could only be appointed as a consultant in the office and not as a private prosecutor.

Arguing for the state, a Principal State Attorney, Mr. Anthony Rexford Wiredu, Gyambiby attained the age sixty on November 28, 2007 and during that period he had an accrued right which was automatic to continue prosecution to the age of 65.

“It was only in September 2010 that the Legal Service Board said an Attorney who needed re-engagement must apply. Until then it was not done. Mr. Gyambiby was already continuing his service as it was the practice before and so was not affected by the decision and therefore, had the accrued right to continue prosecution,” Mr Wiredu argued.

Mr. Wiredu pointed out that PNDC Law 320 gave Mr Gyambiby the mandate to retire at age 65 in the same vain as a High Court judge.

On the issue of the letter written to the court by a former Attorney-General, Mr. Martin Amidu on January 9, 2012, asking that Mr. Gyambiby should continue prosecuting the case, Mr. Wiredu explained the A-G had the authority not in person but the office to appoint lawyers even by word of mouth to represent the state in court.

“Mr Gyambiby has the authority of the A-G and the Legal Service Board to prosecute cases assigned to him through the Director of Public Prosecutions. It does not lie in anybody’s mouth to ask Mr. Gyambiby to produce a re-engagement letter,” Mr. Wiredu argued.
Counsel for Sampong, Mr Augustines Obour, then prayed to refer the issue on the retirement age of a State Attorney to the Supreme Court for interpretation.

Businesswoman drags Merchant Bank to court - For fraudulent withdrawals

March 13, 2012 (Page 3 Lead)

AN OCTAGENARIAN has dragged the Merchant Bank to the Commercial Division of the Fast Track High Court for wrongfully withdrawing GHC37,315,106.45 from her account.
According to Mama Adesi, 85, who sued on behalf of her company Mama Adesi Company Limited, the Accra Main Branch of the bank took advantage of her stark illiteracy and withdrew the amount from her accounts without her knowledge and authorization.
She also accused the bank of debiting her account several times but the bank failed to show the recipients of the moneys adding “the habitual debiting of plaintiff’s accounts without the signature of any recipient made such debits void and of no effect.”
The bank has also been accused of honouring withdrawals from the various accounts of the plaintiff on the basis of word-processed letters which were very often dated by hand, amidst alteration of account numbers in pen without any endorsement by the plaintiff made all those transactions null and void.
The plaintiff, who detected the wrongful withdrawal of the money after she had engaged auditors to audit her company’s accounts is accusing the bank of exercising lack of good faith, due care and best banking practices.
A statement of claim filed on behalf the plaintiff by her lawyer, Mr Kwabla Senanu, argued that because of the plaintiff’s illiteracy, the bank made her aware that anytime she wished to withdraw cash to satisfy any need for foreign exchange, she would thumbprint twice on the face of the each cheque and endorse it again by thumbprinting it at the back.
“Accordingly, the plaintiff was issued with cheque books for both cedis and foreign cash withdrawals, but the defendant reneged on all of these to run down the colossal credit balances on the accounts of the plaintiff,” the statement of claim accompanying the writ pointed out.
A writ of summons filed on her behalf by Mr Senanu, is accordingly praying the court to order the bank to pay forthwith to the plaintiff various sums of monies proven as having been withdrawn wrongfully from plaintiff’s various accounts for almost two decades.
It also praying the court to order the bank to refund all amounts of money for which it had no legitimate authorization to withdraw.
The plaintiff is further claiming among others a refund of all interests charged on the withdrawn amount, an order cancelling any loans/overdrafts purportedly granted to plaintiff by the defendant as well as grant general damages and costs.
A statement of claim accompanying the writ of summons stated that the plaintiff’s company, which deals in import and export of goods has been dealing with the bank for the past two decades with eight separate accounts; both in local and foreign currencies.
In March 2011, the plaintiff’s auditors detected the running down of plaintiff’s accounts by the bank.
The auditors found that the bank withdrew various sums of money from the plaintiff’s foreign and local currency accounts between January 22, 2004 and July 16, 2010.

According to the statement of claim, the documents including letters used for the withdrawals were devoid of authority to warrant the payments of those moneys from the plaintiff’s accounts.
It further argued that the defendant took advantage of the plaintiff’s illiteracy to “surreptitiously procure her consent for an overdraft only to gleefully spirit away the overdraft facility through withdrawals not approved of or endorsed by the plaintiff as the sole signatory to the accounts.”
It said the quantum of withdrawals and the rapidity with which the defective withdrawals and banking transactions involving huge sums of cash and were carried out made such transactions null and void.
The statement of claim stated that despite several written demands requesting for plaintiff’s statement of accounts from the period of January 1, 2000 and December 31 2010, the defendant has failed to heed to plaintiff’s request to enable the plaintiff to know the extent to which the bank had wrongfully withdrawn her money.
She also denied owing the bank GHC594,332 and any accruing interest thereon.
The defendant has entered appearance but yet to file its defence in the matter.

Lands C'ssion gutted by fire - Committee to investigate

March 2, 2012 (Lead story)

THE Lands Commission has constituted a committee to investigate the cause of fire outbreak at its premises early this morning.
The committee is expected to make recommendations for appropriate action to avoid any future occurrence.
Members of the committee will be drawn from the Ghana National Fire Service (GNFS), the Ghana Police Service, the Ghana Armed Forces (GAF), the Bureau of National Investigations (BNI) and the Public Records and Archives Administration.
The rest of the members are from the Lands Commission, the Land Valuation Division, the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources.
At a press briefing in Accra on March 1, 2012, the Chairman of the Lands Commission, Nana Adjei Ampofo, told reporters that the various stakeholders were yet to nominate persons to represent their respective organisations.
Nana Ampofo urged the public to remain calm and not to panic about the safety of their documents which were in the custody of the Commission.
He also stated that the Commission had begun the process to digitize its records before the fire outbreak adding that the Commission’s office was opened for normal business.
Sections of the head office of the Lands Commission at Cantonments in Accra were early this morning reduced to wreckage as fire swept through the Public and Vested Lands Management Division and the Survey and Mapping Division including Accounts, State Lands Registry, Library, Internal Audit, Conference Room and Survey Director’s office.
Thousands of vital documents which were housed in these offices were destroyed by the fire which began at 5 a.m.
The raging fire left in its wake burnt vital documents, total black out at the entire Lands Commission, idle and heartbroken workers who had no office to operate from, visibly shaken government officials and worried members of the public who feared they might have lost vital documents.
Work also grounded to a halt at other departments not affected by the fire outbreak because of the total black out. Officials were not certain when electricity would be restored for work to resume.
A woman collapsed and was rushed to seek medical attention. A young lady, who stood among bewildered staff of the Commission openly cried when she realized there was nothing to salvage.
It took seven fire tenders, six from the Ghana National Fire Service (GNFS) and one from the Ghana Armed Forces and approximately four hours to bring the fire under total control.
Several files, computers and accessories, tables, chairs and electrical appliances among many others were reduced to rubble.
The entire premise of the Lands Commission was engulfed in thick smoke when the Daily Graphic, officials of the Lands Commission and other members of the public got to the scene around 5:40 a.m.
Policemen were dispatched to maintain law and order as well as prevent any person from taking undue advantage of the situation.
Both entries to the Commission were closed to the public. A security man was kept at post to ward off intruders and teeming members of the public. Scores of people observed the incident from outside.
A turntable ladder from the GNFS was used to control the fire from raging through the ceiling to other offices. Some of the workers whose offices had been destroyed managed to get over their shock and began taking photographs of the ruins. Others also formed groups and discussed the incident.
As at 1.00 p.m., some members of staff, who had no office to operate from sat under trees reading newspapers. Officials of the Commission were also locked up in a meeting for several hours discussing the next line of action to be taken for normal work to resume.
The security man on duty informed reporters that he detected the fire at 4:57 a.m. from the file room but was silent on the action he took to contain it.
According to the Deputy Regional Commander of the GNFS, Mr Peter Donkor, a Fire Officer on his way to work detected smoke from one of the ceilings of the Lands Commission and quickly alerted the office which rushed to the scene at exactly 5:20 a.m.
He said the immediate cause of the fire was unknown but indicated investigations were ongoing to ascertain the cause of the fire.
Also present at the scene were the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources, Mr Mike Hammah, the National Chairman of the Lands Commission, Nana Adjei Ampofo, the Greater Accra Regional Chairman of the Lands Commission, Oko Nikoi Dzani, the Mayor of Accra, Alfred Vanderpuje and the Executive Secretary of the Lands Commission, Dr Odami Larbi.
Each of the officials looked shocked upon seeing the damage. Mr Hammah was particularly shaken and close to tears when he visited the scene.
He shook his head several times when he went round to observe the extent of damage.
Mr Dzani allayed the fears of the public and gave the assurance that there was back-up to all files.
He said documents on state, individual and stool land lands could be recovered and further stated that the Commission would later take stock and know the exact quantum of damage.
On his part, Mr Hammah, explained that the government would wait for investigations to be completed before concrete action would be taken on the unfortunate incident.
He, therefore, called for thorough investigations into the cause of the fire.
The fire tenders drove off at exactly 9:16 a.m. after they had put out the fire completely.

Court rules on Jake's purchase of bungalow May 9

March 2, 2012 (Page 3)

The Supreme Court will on May 9, 2012 decide whether or not to evict Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, the current Chairman of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) from government bungalows.
The court fixed the date after parties in the matter had announced to the court that they did not have new issues to file in connection with the case.
A Deputy-Minister of Information, Mr Samuel Okudzeto-Ablakwa and a Deputy Minister of Youth and Sports, Dr Omane Boamah dragged Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey to the highest court of the land over his purchase of a government bungalow in Accra.
The panel to decide the fate of Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey is presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba with Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo as members.
Those representing parties in the case are Mr Kwabla Senanu for the applicants, Mr R.O. Solomon represented Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey while Dr Benjamin Kunbuor, the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice represented the state.
The applicants were present but Mr Obstsebi-Lamptey was absent.

In November 2011, the court dismissed Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey’s preliminary objection which argued that the court had no mandate to hear a case brought before it by the applicants in respect of his right to purchase a government bungalow.

The nine-member court, in a unanimous decision, argued that, although, the case passed for a land case, which falls within the domain of the High Court, the plaintiffs were not laying claim to the property in question but rather seeking an interpretation of several provisions of the Constitution regarding the ownership of state property, including Articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) of the 1992 Constitution.

Presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, the court agreed that it had jurisdiction by law and precedents to hear the case which bordered both on constitutionality and public interest.

Other members of the court were Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Mr Justice S. A. Brobbey, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mrs Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Baffoe Bonnie, Mr Justice B.T. Aryeetey and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto Bamfo.
However, Mr. Justice Ansah later replaced Mr Justice Aryeetey.
In 2008, Mr Ablakwa and Dr. Boamah, Deputy Ministers of Information and Environment, Science and Technology respectively, brought the action against Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey, who was then the Minister of Tourism and National Orientation, seeking a declaration from the court that he had no right to buy the bungalow at No 2 Mungo Street in the Ridge residential area he was occupying at the time.

The plaintiffs had argued that the action of Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey contravened Articles 20 (5) and 20 (6) and smacked of cronyism and gross abuse of discretional powers of a public officer.

However, Mr Obetsebi-Lamptey raised a preliminary objection, saying the court had no mandate to hear the case.

His argument was that the right procedure was for the plaintiffs to apply to the Commission for Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), if they thought he was abusing his office by applying to purchase the bungalow.
However, the Supreme Court held otherwise and accordingly dismissed the case.

Speaker's name struck out in retired journalist's suit

March 1, 2012 (Page 19)

THE Supreme Court has struck out the name of the Speaker Parliament from a suit instituted by a retired journalist who is challenging the creation of additional 42 districts across the country.
Welford Quarcoo, is praying the Supreme Court to declare the creation of the new districts as null and void on the grounds that Section 1 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) which mandated the President to declare an area a district and assign a name to that district by Executive Instrument was inconsistent with Article 241 (2) and 106 (1) of the 1992 Constitution and consequently void.
The plaintiff sued the Attorney-General, The Speaker of Parliament and the Electoral Commission but the nine member panel unanimously struck out the name of the Speaker of Parliament.
According to the court, presided over by Mr Justice William, the name of the Speaker of Parliament was improperly joined in the suit because the Attorney-General was a nominal defendant for arms of the state.
Other members of the panel were Ms Justice Sophia Akuffo, Professor Justice S. K. Date-Bah, Ms Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Justice G. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo.
The court also gave counsel for the applicant, Mr Bright Okyere-Agyekum to file additional issues in a supplement affidavit.
The matter was adjourned to March 14, 2012 to enable the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Benjamin Kunbuor, who was present in court to serve the state’s affidavit in opposition on the applicant.
In addition to the substantive suit, the applicant has filed an interlocutory injunction praying the court to restrain the Minister of Local Government from laying a new Legislative Instrument on the new districts before Parliament.
Despite the court action which was instituted on January 27, 2012, LI for the creation of additional districts and municipalities has been laid before Parliament by the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development.
The LI, which will mature 21 days after its presentation, will also provide the platform for the Electoral Commission (EC) to create more constituencies in the run-up to the December general election.
The motion on notice for interlocutory injunction is seeking among other reliefs an order directed at the Atttorney-General to direct the Minister of Local Government and Rural
Development or any other Minister from laying in Parliament any LI
made pursuant to Section 3 of the Local Government Act, 1993 (Act 462)
pending the hearing and final determination of the action.
It is also seeking an order directed at the Speaker of Parliament from
permitting to be laid before Parliament for the consideration of
Parliament by the Minister of Local Government or any other Minister
any legislative instrument made pursuant to Section 3 of the Local
Government Act, 1993 (Act 462) or pursuant to any other section or
provision in any other enactment pending the hearing and final
determination of the action.
The motion is praying the court to restrain the Electoral Commission
from acting in any way whatsoever pursuant to directions made by the
President in furtherance of Section 1 (3) of the Local Government Act,
1993 (Act 462).
An affidavit in support of the motion for interlocutory injunction
stated among others that despite the court action, the Ministry of
Local Government has taken steps to lay the LI before Parliament and
unless stopped by the highest court of the land, the administration of
justice would be undermined.

The Woyome saga - State to file additional evidence

March 1, 2012 (Front Page)

THE Commercial Division of the Fast Track High Court has granted permission to the state to introduce allegations of fraud against a businessman, Alfred Agbesi Woyome.
The court in effect has given permission to the state to lead evidence to the effect that Woyome made fraudulent claims and in the process succeeded in obtaining a default judgement and subsequently received a payment of GHC51.2 million.
However, the court, presided over by Ms. Justice Barbara F. Ackah-Yensu, awarded GHC2,000 against the state in favour of Woyome because it took the state more than a year to file the amended writ of summons and statement of claim.
According to the Attorney-General’s Department, Woyome obtained the judgement debt through fraudulent means and for that reason, prayed the court to allow it to amend its writ of summons and statement of claim to include the element of fraud against Woyome.
The A-G is currently in court seeking an order for the refund of the judgement debt of GH¢51,283,480.59 paid to Woyome because it was procured by fraudulent means.
Citing numerous legal authorities to buttress the court’s decision, Ms. Justice Ackah-Yensu held that the court took into account the public interest in the administration of justice before granting the request.
She said “there is no reason why I should take a contrary view because because the defendant/respondent was not opposed to the introduction of fraud into the matter” adding that “the issue of fraud can be raised anytime in proceedings.”
On the issue of the Constitutionality raised by the Attorney-General which stated that the alleged contract between Woyome’s company and government did not receive Parliamentary approval thereby rendering it null and void, the court held that it would be delving deep into the matter if it ruled on that.
The court was of the view that for the matter to be complete, effective and finally determined to avoid multiplicity of issues, it was important for it to allow the state to amend its writ of summons and statement of claim.
It accordingly gave the Attorney-General’s Department three days to file its amended writ of summons and statement of claim while it gave Woyome seven days to respond.
The case was adjourned to March 26, 2012 for hearing.
Woyome was absent in court.
Among the reliefs contained in the writ filed at the Registry of the Commercial Division of the High Court, Accra, on Monday, January 16, 2012 is a declaration that the terms of settlement filed on June 4, 2010, to the effect that Mr Woyome should be paid the sum in three equal instalments of GH¢17,094,495.53, were procured by mistake on the part of the A-G and due to fraudulent misrepresentation by Mr Woyome.
Additionally, the A-G is seeking a declaration to set aside the consent judgement of the court on the grounds that Mr Woyome had no contract with the government and consequently lacked a cause of action and the capacity to make the said claim in any court of competent jurisdiction.
According to the A-G, all the agreements between the Government of Ghana and Vamed/Waterville (Waterville as an assignee of Vamed) were null, void and of no legal effect whatsoever, in accordance with Article 181 (5) of the Constitution, to have grounded any cause of action in Mr Woyome or any claimant pursuant to such a contract.
The A-G is seeking a declaration that all the processes filed and proceedings involving Mr Woyome and the A-G were null and void because Mr Woyome lacked the legal capacity to institute the suit, thereby rendering the consent judgement a nullity for the same reasons.
The A-G, in his proposed amended statement of claim, said he had now discovered new and more documents and information from diverse sources involved in the transaction between the government and Waterville that disclosed that the claims by Mr Woyome were fraudulent.
He averred that on May 4, 2005, the then Deputy Minister of Finance signed a letter of introduction which was given to Mr Woyome which stated that the government did not bear responsibility for any liabilities that would arise from the transactions.
Subsequently, following a change in government, Mr Woyome, knowing the contents of the letter and the disclaimer in it, knowingly and fraudulently misrepresented to the A-G that he was entitled to his claim.
The particulars of fraud indicated that Mr Woyome, in making his misrepresentation to the A-G, knew that his claim was untrue and, indeed, intended to deceive the A-G to authorise payment for the sum he claimed when he knew that the government was not liable to pay the sum to him.
Furthermore, the A-G said it was upon those misrepresentations that the government was liable to pay the two per cent for financial engineering that it authorised payments in several instalments to Mr Woyome and that he colluded with Waterville to write to the A-G misrepresenting and supporting the claims when both Mr Woyome and Waterville knew that Mr Woyome did not have any claims against the government.
It said some time in 2005, the government won the bid to host the Africa Cup of Nations football tournament (CAN 2008) and the award of the hosting rights to Ghana required that the country rehabilitated and refurbished its football stadia and other sporting facilities, including the Ohene Djan and the Baba Yara stadia.
The A-G averred that the government initiated a procurement process for the award of the contract to rehabilitate the stadia but cancelled the procurement process before it was completed.
According to the A-G, Waterville made various protests to the government on the purported abrogation of the procurement process and, in consequence of the protests, the government and Waterville entered into negotiations and settled their differences by signing a memorandum of understanding between them, dated November 30, 2005.
In that settlement, the parties agreed that the government would award the Ohene Djan Sports Stadium and El-Wak Stadium, both in Accra, on a turnkey basis to Waterville.
The A-G said in all the transactions, from the invitation to tender, the concurrent approval and purported abrogation, among others, the government dealt directly with Waterville or its accredited agent and later with Vamed and its accredited agents as assignees of the rights of Vamed.
He said the government had never entered into any contract with Mr Woyome in any form whatsoever in respect of the stadia projects or at all, and there was no contract on which Mr Woyome could have maintained any cause of action in the court or any court against the government among others.
In his amended statement of defence and counter-claim, Mr Woyome also averred that the letter of May 4, 2005 referred to by the A-G was an election by the government at the time not to be responsible for any expenses that would be incurred by him in the course of his financial engineering but the same did not refer to the obligation of the government arising out of the successful completion of the financial engineering.
Mr Woyome further denied that the negotiation of the judgement obtained by him on May 24, 2010 was arrived at by mistake on the part of the A-G and that after he had obtained the judgement, he was invited by the A-G to a meeting on May 27, 2010.
As a result of meeting, an agreement was reached that the judgement debt be steeled by the payment of GH¢41,811,480.59 as the judgement debt of five million euros or its cedi equivalent.
The amount represented half of the interest awarded by the court and costs of GH¢25,000.