Monday, March 30, 2015

Waterville drags Ghana to ICC over €25m judgement debt



 

 


In effect, Waterville Holdings is praying the ICC, which is based in London, to overturn a Supreme Court order directed at it to refund the amount.
But the Attorney-General’s Department has opposed the application and has since filed a counter-claim.
The state is telling the ICC that Waterville was not entitled to the claim and must, therefore, not be entertained. “We are currently in the process of constituting the tribunal,” the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, told the Daily Graphic in an interview in Hamburg, Germany, where she is leading a legal and technical team to battle Cote d’Ivoire over its maritime boundary claims.
“One of the main things we are saying is that the ICC lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the arbitral proceedings instituted by Waterville Holdings. This is because the Supreme Court has already dealt with the issues raised in the arbitration,” she said.

Supreme Court order

On June 14, 2013, the Supreme Court directed the international construction firm, Waterville Holdings, to refund all the money paid to it by the Ghana government on the premise that it had no valid and constitutional contractual agreement with the government.
Waterville is expected to refund 25 million euros it received from the government following the court’s judgement that the said contract it entered into with the government for stadia construction for CAN 2008 was unconstitutional.
The Attorney-General’s Department has filed the necessary processes to retrieve the amount but the construction company has resorted to the court of arbitration for redress.
The June 14, 2013 order was premised on the ground that the contract which led to the payment to Waterville had contravened Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution, which required such contracts to go to Parliament for approval.
A former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Martin Alamisi Amidu, had, in the original suit, prayed the court to order Waterville Holdings and businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome to refund the money.
Woyome was paid GH¢51.2 million which arose out of the said contract. 
The Supreme Court had originally declined to order Woyome to refund the money, with the explanation that the High Court was hearing that matter.
But on July 29, 2014, it departed from its earlier position after Mr Amidu had filed for a review.
On February 11, 2015, the Supreme Court adjourned the application for enforcement sine die because lawyers for Woyome and Waterville were absent in court.
But the Attorney-General’s Department was represented by Mrs Helen Awo Ziwu, the acting Solicitor-General, and Mrs Stella Badu, a Chief State Attorney.

Contract null and void

In the Waterville judgement, the court declared as null and void and of no operative effect a contract titled: “Contract for the Rehabilitation (Design, Construction, Fixtures, Fittings and Equipment) of a 40,000 Seating Capacity Baba Yara Sports Stadium in Kumasi, Ghana” entered into between the Republic of Ghana and Waterville Holdings Limited (BVI), of P.O. Box 3444, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands on April 26, 2006.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

A-G on heels of Woyome ; To enforce Supreme Court order

A-G on heels of Woyome ; To enforce Supreme Court orderCourt bailiffs were yesterday unable to serve hearing notices on businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome for the enforcement of a Supreme Court judgement against him.
However, they were able to serve Waterville Holdings, the company that was also ordered to pay back 25 million euros to the state.
Court sources told the Daily Graphic that although there were many vehicles parked in Woyome’s compound, the security detail at the place informed court bailiffs and officials from the Attorney-General’s (A-G’s) Office that he was not at home.
Therefore, bailiffs will attempt service again today or, in the event that they are not successful,  the A-G will have to go back to the Supreme Court to ask for an order for substituted service.
The Supreme Court had, on July 29, 2014, ordered Woyome to refund GH¢51.2 million to the state on the grounds that the contract based on which he had received the money was unconstitutional.
The hearing of the A-G’s application to enforce the Supreme Court judgement has been adjourned sine die.
The adjournment was to enable bailiffs to serve hearing notices on Woyome and Waterville Holdings. 

Background

The Supreme Court, on July 29, 2014, ordered Woyome to refund GH¢51.2 million to the state on the grounds that he got the money out of unconstitutional and invalid contracts between the state and Waterville Holdings Limited in 2006 for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008.
It held, in a unanimous decision, that the contracts upon which Woyome made and received the claim were in contravention of Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which requires such contracts to be laid before and approved by Parliament.
The 11-member court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, was ruling on a review application filed by a former A-G and Minister of Justice, Mr Martin Amidu. 
Other members of the panel were Justices Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Owusu, Jones Dotse, Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, N.S. Gbadegbe, Vida Akoto-Bamfo, A. A. Bennin and J. B. Akamba.

June 14, 2013 judgement

The court had, on June 14, 2013, directed the international construction firm, Waterville Holdings Limited (BVI), to refund all the money paid to it by the Ghana government on the premise that it had no valid and constitutional contractual agreement with the government.
Waterville is expected to refund 25 million euros it received from the government, following the court’s judgement that the said contract it entered into with the government for stadia construction for CAN 2008 was unconstitutional.
That was because it had contravened Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution, which required such contracts to go to Parliament for approval.
Mr Amidu had, in the original suit, prayed the court to order Woyome to refund the money he had received as a result of the void contract the government had entered into with Waterville Holdings.
But the court declined jurisdiction over the issue, with the reason that the A-G was then pursuing the matter at the Commercial Court to retrieve the money.

The review

According to the applicant, who filed the application for review on July 12, 2013, he had read the two judgements delivered by the Supreme Court very carefully, along with other Ghanaians of like thinking, and had come to the conclusion that some aspects of the judgement contained “exceptional circumstances that have resulted in what we perceive may constitute a miscarriage of justice”.
 He said the 1992 Constitution imposed both rights and obligations, particularly under articles 2 and 3, on every Ghanaian citizen to ensure that the order established by the Constitution was not threatened or by an unlawful means abrogated. 

Contract null and void

In the Waterville judgement, the court declared as null and void and of no operative effect a contract titled: “Contract for the Rehabilitation (Design, Construction, Fixtures, Fittings and Equipment) of a 40,000 Seating Capacity Baba Yara Sports Stadium in Kumasi, Ghana” entered into between the Republic of Ghana and Waterville Holdings (BVI) Limited of P.O. Box 3444, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands on April 26, 2006.

The review decision

Reversing aspects of the court’s June 2013 judgement on behalf of her colleagues, Mrs Justice Wood said the conduct of the then A-G and Minister of Justice in paying or ordering the payment of money to Austro-Invest for a “purported” financial engineering which arose out of an April 26, 2006 agreement was, therefore, unconstitutional. 
Austro-Invest was contracted by Woyome to syndicate funding for the grant of a 1.1 billion euro facility but was paid off by Woyome.
Woyome had, on June 25, 2014, told the Financial Division of the High Court hearing a criminal case instituted against him by the state that Austro-Invest sued him at the High Court, but the case was discontinued after he had paid $1 million to Austro-Invest through M-powapak.

Proceedings at High Court void

The court further declared as null and void and of no legal effect proceedings at the High Court (Commercial Division) that entertained a suit brought against the state by Woyome on April 19, 2010.
It also held that the conduct of Woyome and Austro-Invest in making claims and receiving payment on two “in-operative agreements” which were international businesses that had not received parliamentary approval was also illegal.

Woyome freed

Meanwhile, the High Court, on March 12, 2015, acquitted and discharged Woyome on two counts of defrauding by false pretence and causing financial loss to the state but the state has appealed the judgement.

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Resign or step aside ; Woyome demands of A-G ; But she describes call as dishonest

Resign or step aside ;  Woyome demands of A-G ; But she describes call as dishonestShe is on his heels and wants him convicted for fraudulently obtaining GH¢51.2 million after his acquittal and discharge at the Fast Track High Court on March 12, 2015.
That is why the Attorney General has gone to the Court of Appeal seeking that the judgement freeing him be overturned.
Businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome is calling for the resignation of the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew-Appiah Opong, on the ground that a company her former firm represented had got $1 million from the judgement debt he received.
But the Attorney-General, in a sharp rebuttal, has denied the claim and said “the $1 million he is referring to was money he borrowed from Mr Ray Smith in 2008. He was not paying back and Mr Smith pursued him to pay back”.
A statement of claim attached to the writ of summons issued on behalf of Mr Smith had prayed the High Court to order Woyome to pay back the $982,929.53 he took from Mr Smith.
“I never personally fought against Woyome. It was my former partner, Mr Tony Lithur, who handled cases against him in the past. He is up to nothing but mischief but I wish to assure Ghanaians that I will use my good office to pursue justice. Justice is all I seek for Ghanaians and nothing will deter me,” Mrs Appiah-Opong pointed out.

Woyome’s letter

A letter dated March 13, 2015 and signed by Woyome and addressed to Mrs Appiah-Opong accused her of being biased and out to get at him at all cost.
“In as much as I am not against the decision of the State to appeal, I am particularly against your conduct and public utterances during the trial and after the judgement,” the letter, which was also addressed to the Secretary to the President and the Chief of Staff, noted.
Interestingly, the letter was dated the day he was served with the notice of appeal.
“‘This case has travelled approximately three and half years and you have all the opportunity to prove any case against my person; more so as you know that the default judgement was negotiated between myself and then Attorney-General, together with officials of the Presidency, with the knowledge of then Chief of Staff who was copied with every correspondence,” it said.

Austro-Invest

While accusing the Attorney-General’s legal firm, Lithur Brew and Co., Woyome stated that the firm’s client, Austro-Invest, benefitted from the judgement debt and for that reason “I find it difficult to reconcile your decision to involve yourself directly in this criminal case and notice of appeal you have authorised to be issued and served on me. It is a fact that you and your clients received approximately one million dollars equivalent from the said judgement debt you now so much criminalised and want me jailed for”.

Dishonest letter

Describing Woyome’s letter as rambling, dishonest, unnecessary and a move to throw dust in the eyes of Ghanaians, Mrs Appiah-Opong denied his claims. 
“If Woyome is confident that the appeal will fail, why does he not save his breath for the Court of Appeal where three Law Lords will determine the merit of the appeal? 
“I have the full support of His Excellency the President to pursue the appeal as expeditiously as possible and I intend to do so.
“I swore an oath to protect the public purse that is what I have done since I came into office and I will continue to do so,” she stated. 
 “Furthermore, while in private practice I never handled the matters referred to in his letter. In any case, the money had nothing to do with the judgement debt paid him.
“He is being dishonest with the public and he must be treated with the contempt he deserves,” she added.
She warned Woyome to desist from playing with the mind of the public and prepare to justify why the judgement should not be overturned.

Message to the media

Turning to the media, the Attorney-General advised them to desist from spreading the falsehood being peddled by 

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Oteng-Adjei dragged to court

Dr Joe Oteng-Adjei
A pressure group, OccupyGhana, and one of its directors have dragged a former Minister of Energy, Dr Joe Oteng-Adjei, to the High Court for keeping a state vehicle months after leaving office.
The group and its director, Mr Sydney Casely-Hayford, are asking the court to order the former minister to pay GH¢355,812 as special damages for what they termed “illegal and wrongful” use of the vehicle for a period of 222 days.
The plaintiffs, in a writ of summons filed on March 12, 2015, are seeking a declaration that Dr Oteng-Adjei’s keeping and use of the Lexus vehicle with registration number GC 5958-11 from July 16, 2014 to February 23, 2015 amounted to “conversion and detinue”.
The suit, which has joined the Attorney-General as the second defendant, is also seeking a declaration that the government of Ghana was negligent in not ensuring that Dr Oteng-Adjei returned the said Lexus vehicle upon leaving office as minister on July 16, 2014.
Surcharge
Another relief being sought by the plaintiffs is a declaration that the state and the people of Ghana were entitled to surcharge or otherwise be compensated for his wrongful and illegal use of the vehicle for the 222 days aside the orders directed at Dr Oteng-Adjei to pay to the government of Ghana the sum of GH¢355,812 as “special damages for his conversion of and detinue in respect of his wrongful and illegal keeping and use of Lexus Vehicle with registration number GC 5958-11, for the 222 days between 16th July 2014 to 23rd February 2015”.
The plaintiffs are further praying the court to direct the Attorney-General to recover the said amount.
Also sought by the plaintiffs is interest on the said amount from July 16, 2014 to February 23, 2015, as well as general damages and any other cost the court might deem fit.
Statement of claim
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs said, among other things, that as citizens of Ghana, they had a duty under Article 41(f) of the Constitution "to protect and preserve public property and expose and combat misuse and waste of public funds and property". 
It said at all times relevant and material to the action, Dr Oteng-Adjei was also under a similar duty to protect and preserve public property, and that any improper or unauthorised use or abuse or misuse of public property by him was a breach of the Constitution and of his duty to Ghana and the people of Ghana, including the plaintiffs.
It further stated that Dr Oteng-Adjei was also under an obligation under Article 41(d) of the Constitution to refrain from doing acts that were detrimental to the welfare of other persons, including the people of Ghana and the plaintiffs.
According to the statement, Dr Oteng-Adjei took or subscribed to the Oath of Allegiance under the Constitution before assuming office as minister, by which he swore to bear true faith and allegiance to Ghana, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
In addition, it said the defendant further took or subscribed to the Oath of Ministers of State under the Constitution, by which he swore to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and to use the best of his judgement to advise for the good management of the public affairs of Ghana.
On the basis of the foregoing, Dr Oteng-Adjei, the statement said, was also under a constitutional duty involving the absolute, most abundant good faith and perfect candour, openness and honesty, and a legal duty to exercise skill, care and diligence as ordinarily careful and prudent men or women could reasonably be expected to exercise in similar circumstances.
It said as a minister, Dr Oteng-Adjei was entitled to the use of at least one official vehicle (a four-wheel drive), among other entitlements, and on account of his entitlements as a minister (then of Energy), assigned to himself, for official use and purposes, a Lexus LX 570 four-wheel drive vehicle with registration number GC 5958-11.
According to the statement, the vehicle was part of a fleet of project vehicles acquired by the Ministry of Energy with proceeds of a loan that was approved by Parliament, at the expense of the people of Ghana for a rural electrification project.
It said by Dr Oteng-Adjei’s own account in the media – when the President subsequently removed him from the Ministry of Energy and assigned him to the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology as the minister – he was allowed to take the vehicle with him for use as his official vehicle in that other ministry.
It said upon a ministerial reshuffle on July 16, 2014, the President removed Dr Oteng-Adjei from his position as minister, and thereby ceased to be a public officer.
The statement contended that when the defendant was removed from office as a minister, he neglected, failed or refused to return the vehicle to the government, but intentionally and wilfully kept possession of, detained and continuously used the vehicle for his private purposes.
The government, it further contended, also neglected or failed to demand the return of, or take any steps whatsoever to recover the vehicle from the defendant and it was only on February 23, 2015, and after a major media exposè about his wrongful and illegal conversion, detention and use of the vehicle, that he returned it to the government.
It said by simple arithmetic calculation, the vehicle was wrongfully and illegally kept, detained and used by the defendant for 222 days, adding that the conduct of the defendant in wrongfully and illegally detaining and using the vehicle amounted to a flagrant breach of his constitutional and legal obligations owed to Ghana and the people of Ghana.
Particulars of negligence
According to the statement, the government owes a general and constitutional duty of care towards the plaintiffs and the people of Ghana to secure, uphold and protect at all times the principles of probity and accountability, pursuant to which the government had an obligation under the Constitution and general law, to demand the immediate return of the vehicle by the defendant on his removal as a minister.
“The government breached its duty of care to the plaintiffs and the people of Ghana when it failed to demand the return of the vehicle or take any appropriate steps to compel the defendant to return the vehicle,” the statement contended, pointing out that “the plaintiffs and the people of Ghana have sustained damages as a result of the breach of this duty by the government, which deprived them of their interest in, possession of, access to and use of the vehicle”.
It maintained that notwithstanding the government’s negligence or complicity, Ghana and the people of Ghana were entitled to be restituted and compensated by the defendant for his conversion of, and detinue with respect to the vehicle.
“By the open commercial vehicle rental rates available as of the date of filing this suit, a Lexus vehicle of the make and specification of the vehicle is rented at the cedi equivalent of Five Hundred United States Dollars (US$500) per day.
“For the period that the vehicle was wrongfully and illegally in the possession and use of the defendant, he is liable to pay an amount of Three Hundred and Fifty-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twelve Ghana Cedis (GH¢355,812) to the government, for and on behalf of the people of Ghana,” the statement added.

Woyome has never been my client — Tony Lithur

Tony Lithur
A legal practitioner, Mr Tony Lithur, has denied rumours he has been defending businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome in court.
“This rumour, which has found its way onto radio stations and other media platforms including social media, is completely false. In any case, Woyome himself has stated publicly that I have a personal vendetta against him,” counsel noted.
According to Mr Lithur, his law firm which had the current Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, as a partner, had on all occasions defended Woyome’s opponents.
Reacting to the said rumours in an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, Mr Lithur said “our firm has handled four cases against Woyome. Two have been settled and two are still pending in court”.
Woyome gains freedom
Woyome was on Thursday, March 12, 2015 acquitted and discharged on two counts of defrauding by false pretence and causing financial loss to the state.
The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam took on the Attorney-General’s Department for paying GH¢51.2 million to Woyome in 2010 only to turn around to prosecute him for fraud.
It said the prosecutors failed to prove the ingredients of fraud to warrant the court to convict Woyome.
The Attorney-General’s Department has expressed its disagreement with the judgement and has since indicated its intention to appeal.
Where from rumours
The court’s decision has sparked public outcry and in the midst of it Mr Lithur and Mrs Appiah-Opong have been aligned with Woyome.
“I do not know where this falsehood of us defending Woyome is coming from. It is amazing how people can sit and conjecture falsehood only in the name of what?” Mr Lithur queried and advised persons engaged in what he termed “vile propaganda” to stop.
Cases in question
“We have never represented Woyome in any matter. In all matters, we have been against him,” Mr Lithur said.
Enumerating the cases his firm had handled against Woyome, Mr Lithur said his firm was representing the Managing Editor of the Enquirer newspaper, Mr Raymond Archer, in the case in which Woyome sued Mr Archer over ownership of the paper.
“The second was a defamation suit Woyome filed against  the Enquirer but it was thrown out after we raised preliminary legal objections.
“Woyome has since re-filed the defamation suit but is yet to pursue it,” Mr Lithur explained.
Explaining further, counsel said his client, Mr Ray Smith, sued Woyome for a $1 million loan Woyome took from him to run his (Woyome’s) foundation.
According to counsel, Mr Smith resorted to the court when Woyome allegedly refused to pay back the said amount.
Mr Lithur continued, “There are correspondences between Woyome and us to prove we had acted against him.”
Citing another instance of disagreement between his client and Woyome, counsel said Mr Smith was indisposed and as a result of that he (Mr Smith) appointed Woyome as an alternate director in Mpowapak but “Woyome took more than GH¢200,000  from the company’s account resulting in my client pursuing him to pay back. He has since paid back all the money to my client”.
Austro-Invest
In the fourth case, Mr Lithur said Austro-Invest contacted him to make claims against Woyome after Austro-Invest had given Woyome the power of attorney to follow up on the GH¢51.2 million, which had been duly paid.
 Austro-Invest had worked with a team that negotiated for the 1.1 billion euro facility from Bank Austria.
“I filed the suit on behalf of Austro-Invest but I advised the company to withdraw the suit after hell broke loose on the said GH¢51.2 million,” Mr Lithur added, and advised the public to make statements from informed positions. 
Mr Lithur did not indicate the action he would take if the “vile campaign” did not stop, but warned “this vile campaign to tag my firm and I as Woyome’s allies will not wash. It will be in the interest of those championing those lies to stop with immediate effect”.

Woyome has never been my client — Tony Lithur

Tony Lithur
Tony Lithur
A legal practitioner, Mr Tony Lithur, has denied rumours he has been defending businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome in court.
“This rumour, which has found its way onto radio stations and other media platforms including social media, is completely false. In any case, Woyome himself has stated publicly that I have a personal vendetta against him,” counsel noted.
According to Mr Lithur, his law firm which had the current Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, as a partner, had on all occasions defended Woyome’s opponents.
Reacting to the said rumours in an interview with the Daily Graphic in Accra yesterday, Mr Lithur said “our firm has handled four cases against Woyome. Two have been settled and two are still pending in court”.
Woyome gains freedom
Woyome was on Thursday, March 12, 2015 acquitted and discharged on two counts of defrauding by false pretence and causing financial loss to the state.
The High Court, presided over by Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam took on the Attorney-General’s Department for paying GH¢51.2 million to Woyome in 2010 only to turn around to prosecute him for fraud.
It said the prosecutors failed to prove the ingredients of fraud to warrant the court to convict Woyome.
The Attorney-General’s Department has expressed its disagreement with the judgement and has since indicated its intention to appeal.
Where from rumours
The court’s decision has sparked public outcry and in the midst of it Mr Lithur and Mrs Appiah-Opong have been aligned with Woyome.
“I do not know where this falsehood of us defending Woyome is coming from. It is amazing how people can sit and conjecture falsehood only in the name of what?” Mr Lithur queried and advised persons engaged in what he termed “vile propaganda” to stop.
Cases in question
“We have never represented Woyome in any matter. In all matters, we have been against him,” Mr Lithur said.
Enumerating the cases his firm had handled against Woyome, Mr Lithur said his firm was representing the Managing Editor of the Enquirer newspaper, Mr Raymond Archer, in the case in which Woyome sued Mr Archer over ownership of the paper.
“The second was a defamation suit Woyome filed against  the Enquirer but it was thrown out after we raised preliminary legal objections.
“Woyome has since re-filed the defamation suit but is yet to pursue it,” Mr Lithur explained.
Explaining further, counsel said his client, Mr Ray Smith, sued Woyome for a $1 million loan Woyome took from him to run his (Woyome’s) foundation.
According to counsel, Mr Smith resorted to the court when Woyome allegedly refused to pay back the said amount.
Mr Lithur continued, “There are correspondences between Woyome and us to prove we had acted against him.”
Citing another instance of disagreement between his client and Woyome, counsel said Mr Smith was indisposed and as a result of that he (Mr Smith) appointed Woyome as an alternate director in Mpowapak but “Woyome took more than GH¢200,000  from the company’s account resulting in my client pursuing him to pay back. He has since paid back all the money to my client”.
Austro-Invest
In the fourth case, Mr Lithur said Austro-Invest contacted him to make claims against Woyome after Austro-Invest had given Woyome the power of attorney to follow up on the GH¢51.2 million, which had been duly paid.
 Austro-Invest had worked with a team that negotiated for the 1.1 billion euro facility from Bank Austria.
“I filed the suit on behalf of Austro-Invest but I advised the company to withdraw the suit after hell broke loose on the said GH¢51.2 million,” Mr Lithur added, and advised the public to make statements from informed positions. 
Mr Lithur did not indicate the action he would take if the “vile campaign” did not stop, but warned “this vile campaign to tag my firm and I as Woyome’s allies will not wash. It will be in the interest of those championing those lies to stop with immediate effect”.

Oteng-Adjei dragged to court

Dr Joe Oteng-Adjei
Dr Joe Oteng-Adjei

A pressure group, OccupyGhana, and one of its directors have dragged a former Minister of Energy, Dr Joe Oteng-Adjei, to the High Court for keeping a state vehicle months after leaving office.
The group and its director, Mr Sydney Casely-Hayford, are asking the court to order the former minister to pay GH¢355,812 as special damages for what they termed “illegal and wrongful” use of the vehicle for a period of 222 days.
The plaintiffs, in a writ of summons filed on March 12, 2015, are seeking a declaration that Dr Oteng-Adjei’s keeping and use of the Lexus vehicle with registration number GC 5958-11 from July 16, 2014 to February 23, 2015 amounted to “conversion and detinue”.
The suit, which has joined the Attorney-General as the second defendant, is also seeking a declaration that the government of Ghana was negligent in not ensuring that Dr Oteng-Adjei returned the said Lexus vehicle upon leaving office as minister on July 16, 2014.
Surcharge
Another relief being sought by the plaintiffs is a declaration that the state and the people of Ghana were entitled to surcharge or otherwise be compensated for his wrongful and illegal use of the vehicle for the 222 days aside the orders directed at Dr Oteng-Adjei to pay to the government of Ghana the sum of GH¢355,812 as “special damages for his conversion of and detinue in respect of his wrongful and illegal keeping and use of Lexus Vehicle with registration number GC 5958-11, for the 222 days between 16th July 2014 to 23rd February 2015”.
The plaintiffs are further praying the court to direct the Attorney-General to recover the said amount.
Also sought by the plaintiffs is interest on the said amount from July 16, 2014 to February 23, 2015, as well as general damages and any other cost the court might deem fit.
Statement of claim
In their statement of claim, the plaintiffs said, among other things, that as citizens of Ghana, they had a duty under Article 41(f) of the Constitution "to protect and preserve public property and expose and combat misuse and waste of public funds and property". 
It said at all times relevant and material to the action, Dr Oteng-Adjei was also under a similar duty to protect and preserve public property, and that any improper or unauthorised use or abuse or misuse of public property by him was a breach of the Constitution and of his duty to Ghana and the people of Ghana, including the plaintiffs.
It further stated that Dr Oteng-Adjei was also under an obligation under Article 41(d) of the Constitution to refrain from doing acts that were detrimental to the welfare of other persons, including the people of Ghana and the plaintiffs.
According to the statement, Dr Oteng-Adjei took or subscribed to the Oath of Allegiance under the Constitution before assuming office as minister, by which he swore to bear true faith and allegiance to Ghana, and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
In addition, it said the defendant further took or subscribed to the Oath of Ministers of State under the Constitution, by which he swore to uphold, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and to use the best of his judgement to advise for the good management of the public affairs of Ghana.
On the basis of the foregoing, Dr Oteng-Adjei, the statement said, was also under a constitutional duty involving the absolute, most abundant good faith and perfect candour, openness and honesty, and a legal duty to exercise skill, care and diligence as ordinarily careful and prudent men or women could reasonably be expected to exercise in similar circumstances.
It said as a minister, Dr Oteng-Adjei was entitled to the use of at least one official vehicle (a four-wheel drive), among other entitlements, and on account of his entitlements as a minister (then of Energy), assigned to himself, for official use and purposes, a Lexus LX 570 four-wheel drive vehicle with registration number GC 5958-11.
According to the statement, the vehicle was part of a fleet of project vehicles acquired by the Ministry of Energy with proceeds of a loan that was approved by Parliament, at the expense of the people of Ghana for a rural electrification project.
It said by Dr Oteng-Adjei’s own account in the media – when the President subsequently removed him from the Ministry of Energy and assigned him to the Ministry of Environment, Science and Technology as the minister – he was allowed to take the vehicle with him for use as his official vehicle in that other ministry.
It said upon a ministerial reshuffle on July 16, 2014, the President removed Dr Oteng-Adjei from his position as minister, and thereby ceased to be a public officer.
The statement contended that when the defendant was removed from office as a minister, he neglected, failed or refused to return the vehicle to the government, but intentionally and wilfully kept possession of, detained and continuously used the vehicle for his private purposes.
The government, it further contended, also neglected or failed to demand the return of, or take any steps whatsoever to recover the vehicle from the defendant and it was only on February 23, 2015, and after a major media exposè about his wrongful and illegal conversion, detention and use of the vehicle, that he returned it to the government.
It said by simple arithmetic calculation, the vehicle was wrongfully and illegally kept, detained and used by the defendant for 222 days, adding that the conduct of the defendant in wrongfully and illegally detaining and using the vehicle amounted to a flagrant breach of his constitutional and legal obligations owed to Ghana and the people of Ghana.
Particulars of negligence
According to the statement, the government owes a general and constitutional duty of care towards the plaintiffs and the people of Ghana to secure, uphold and protect at all times the principles of probity and accountability, pursuant to which the government had an obligation under the Constitution and general law, to demand the immediate return of the vehicle by the defendant on his removal as a minister.
“The government breached its duty of care to the plaintiffs and the people of Ghana when it failed to demand the return of the vehicle or take any appropriate steps to compel the defendant to return the vehicle,” the statement contended, pointing out that “the plaintiffs and the people of Ghana have sustained damages as a result of the breach of this duty by the government, which deprived them of their interest in, possession of, access to and use of the vehicle”.
It maintained that notwithstanding the government’s negligence or complicity, Ghana and the people of Ghana were entitled to be restituted and compensated by the defendant for his conversion of, and detinue with respect to the vehicle.
“By the open commercial vehicle rental rates available as of the date of filing this suit, a Lexus vehicle of the make and specification of the vehicle is rented at the cedi equivalent of Five Hundred United States Dollars (US$500) per day.
“For the period that the vehicle was wrongfully and illegally in the possession and use of the defendant, he is liable to pay an amount of Three Hundred and Fifty-Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Twelve Ghana Cedis (GH¢355,812) to the government, for and on behalf of the people of Ghana,” the statement added.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

AG to appeal Woyome's acquittal

Ghana Attorney General in court for Woyome's Case
The state has indicated its intention to appeal against the acquittal and discharge of businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome.
“We disagree completely with the judgement of the court,” the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong, said in an interview.
“We are applying for a copy of the judgement, study it carefully and appeal accordingly,” she noted.
One of her predecessors, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, had, in 2010, advised that Woyome be paid the amount.
Reacting to the court’s decision, Mrs Appiah-Opong said “the judge stated clearly that the Attorney-General’s office had made a case for Woyome to answer. It was for this reason that Woyome was asked to open his defence. Which aspect of Woyome’s defence created doubt in the prosecution’s case?”
She was referring to the court’s ruling on Woyome’s submission of “no case” after the state had closed its case.
The court had on April 30, 2014, ordered him to open his defence because the state had proved a case against him to warrant him to open his defence. He opened his defence on May 6, 2014 and ended on December 12, 2014.
“Interestingly, the judge did not mention Woyome’s defence and how the state punched holes during cross examination of him,” the A-G noted.
Mrs Appiah-Opong said “it was common knowledge that Barton-Odro and Mould-Iddrisu had as recent as yesterday, stated that payment of the money was justified. Should we have called them to the witness stand to come and say that story? Only a stupid prosecutor would have done that.”
She further queried “Again, who was defrauded? Betty and Barton? It was the state and we called all the witnesses to show that the state did not receive any value for money paid him.”
The Attorney-General said there was more than enough ground laid by the prosecution to secure a conviction of Woyome and for that reason “the state will definitely appeal the court’s decision”.
Lawyer for Woyome
Speaking to journalists after the court’s decision, one of the lawyers for Woyome, Mr Musah Ahmed, expressed joy at the judgement.
He was of the view that the defence fought a fierce battle which eventually led to the acquittal of his client.

Background 
Woyome was arrested on February 3, 2012 after the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), which was commissioned by the late President John Evans Atta Mills to investigate payment to him, had implicated him for wrongdoing.
He was first arraigned on February 6, 2012 together with three others.
Three others
The three people suspected to have aided Woyome were a Chief State Attorney, Mr Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh; his wife, Mrs Gifty Nerquaye-Tetteh, and the Director of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Mr Paul Asimenu.
Woyome was initially charged with conspiracy, defrauding by false pretence and corrupting a public officer, while Mr Nerquaye-Tetteh was charged with conspiracy and corrupting a public officer. Asimenu and Mrs Nerquaye-Tetteh were charged with abetment of crime. 
He was alleged to have paid GH¢400,000 to the couple but they and Mr Asimenu were, on June 5, 2012, freed, following the state’s declaration of filing a nolle prosequi to discontinue trying them.
Woyome was, however, re-arraigned and charged with two counts of causing financial loss to the state and defrauding by false pretence.
Feb 13, 2012 – Woyome, was on February 13, 2012 granted a GH¢54 million but his lawyers applied for variation and on February 20, 2012, the bail condition was reviewed and reduced to GH¢20 million. 

Indictments, resignations and dismissals
The interim report of EOCO, which was presented to the President on February 2, 2012, also indicted two former government officials under whose watch the procurement process was carried out. 
They were Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, the Minister of Education, Youth and Sports at the time, and his deputy, Mr O. B. Amoah. But Mr Osafo-Maafo secured a court order which, declared EOCO’s investigation of him as illegal.
He also testified as a prosecution witness and ended his examination-in-chief on July 30, 2012.
A fallout from the Woyome scandal led to the dismissal of the then Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Mr Martin Amidu, who later managed to secure judgement against Woyome at the Supreme Court.
It also led to the resignation of the Minister of Education, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, who, as Attorney General and Minister of Justice, had recommended that the money be paid to Woyome.
Witnesses
The prosecution called nine witnesses but Woyome did not call any. He testified on his own behalf.
The crux of the prosecution’s case is that Woyome put in false claims by stating he was entitled to the amount because government had abrogated a contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008 when in fact there was no such contract.
Woyome on his part is arguing he was entitled to the money because a court of competent jurisdiction (Commercial Court) awarded him a default judgement in 2010 after the state had failed to put in a defence.
The prosecution, which has since closed its case, began calling its witnesses in June 2012.
Persons who testified on behalf of the state were Mrs Mangowa Ghanney of the MOFEP; Mr Osafo-Maafo; a former Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr Kwaku Agyeman Manu; Ms Yvonne Quansah of MOFEP and a former Deputy Governor of the Bank of Ghana (BoG), Mr Lionel Van Lare Dosoo.
Ms Lesley Dodoo of the Public Procurement Authority; Mr Andrea Orlandi, then Managing Director of Waterville Holdings, and Mr Ahmed Sulemana, the acting Chief Director of the Ministry of Justice, and the investigator in the case, Assistant Superintendent of Police Mr Odame Okyere, also testified.
Woyome had sued the state for a breach of contract relating to the construction of some stadia for the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations hosted by Ghana and was awarded a default judgement to that tune because the state failed to put in a defence.

 Submission of no case
Woyome on February 27, 2014 filed a submission of no case after the state had closed its case but the court on April 30, 2014 ordered him to open his defence. He opened his defence on May 6, 2014 and ended on December 12, 2014.
Supreme Court on Woyome’s heels
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is on the heels of Woyome to refund the GHC51.2 million.
The highest court of the land on July 29, 2014, ordered Woyome to refund GH¢51.2 million to the state on the grounds that he got the money out of unconstitutional and invalid contracts between the state and Waterville Holdings Limited in 2006 for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008.
It held, in a unanimous decision, that the contracts upon which Woyome made and received the claim were in contravention of Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which requires such contracts to be laid before and approved by Parliament.
The 11-member court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, was ruling on a review application filed by a former Attorney- General and Minister of Justice, Mr Martin Amidu. 
Other members of the panel were Justices Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Owusu, Jones Dotse, Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, N. S. Gbadegbe, Vida Akoto Bamfo, A. A. Bennin and J.B. Akamba.
June 14, 2013 judgement
The court had on June 14, 2013, directed the international construction firm, Waterville Holdings Limited (BVI), to refund all the money paid to it by the Ghana government on the premise that it had no valid and constitutional contractual agreement with the government.
Waterville is expected to refund 25 million euros it received from the government, following the court’s judgement that the said contract it entered into with the government for stadia construction for CAN 2008 was unconstitutional.
Mr Amidu had, in the original suit, prayed the court to order Woyome to refund the money he had received as a result of the void contract the government had entered into with Waterville Holdings.
But the court declined jurisdiction over the issue, with the reason that the Attorney-General was pursuing the matter at the Commercial Court to retrieve the money.
The review
According to the applicant, who filed the application for review on July 12, 2013, he had read the two judgements delivered by the Supreme Court very carefully, along with other Ghanaians of like thinking, and had come to the conclusion that some aspects of the judgement contained “exceptional circumstances that have resulted in what we perceive may constitute a miscarriage of justice”.
He said the 1992 Constitution imposed both rights and obligations, particularly under articles 2 and 3, on every Ghanaian citizen to ensure that the constitutional order established by the Constitution was not threatened or by an unlawful means abrogated. 
The court in its July 29, 2014 decision upheld Mr Amidu’s review application and granted his prayer.
Enforcement
The Attorney-General has since filed an application to enforce the Supreme Court’s July 29, 2014 judgement.
Hearing of the application has been adjourned indefinitely to enable bailiffs to serve hearing notices on Woyome and Waterville Holdings.

Absence of witness leads to GYEEDA case adjournment

Absence of witness leads to GYEEDA case adjournment
Hearing of the GH¢4.1 million Ghana Youth Employment and Entrepreneurial Development Agency (GYEEDA) trial was adjourned yesterday because a prosecution witness who was billed to testify was out of the jurisdiction.
A Chief State Attorney, Mrs Evelyn Keelson, informed the Financial Division of the High Court, presided over by Mrs Justice Afia Serwaa Asare-Botwe, that the state’s next witness was out of the country.
It would be recalled that on February 23, 2015, Mrs Keelson informed the court that the witness was likely to be in town before yesterday’s sitting.
The presiding judge did not take kindly to the prosecution’s explanation with the reason that the court had to adjourn most of the cases it was billed to hear to pave the way for the GYEEDA hearing.
Nonetheless, Mrs Keelson maintained that her office got wind of the inability of the witness to appear on Tuesday night.
The court, therefore, adjourned the case to March 17, 2015. 

Accounts Officer

An Accounts Officer on February 23, 2015, told the court that he processed six different cheques totalling GH¢4.1 million for payment to two entities and an individual.
Eric Sunu, a staff member of the Controller and Accountant General’s Department (CAGD), who was attached to the GYEEDA office, told the court that he processed the cheques for payment to the Management Development and Productivity Institute (MDPI) and Goodwill International Group (GIG) after his bosses had given their approval.
The witness explained that five of the cheques were issued in the name of MDPI/GIG while the sixth cheque of GH¢835,000 was issued in the name of Philip Akpeena Assibit for conducting tracer studies.

Charges

Abuga Pele, a former National Coordinator of the National Youth Employment Programme (NYEP), and Philip Assibit, a consultant, are charged with causing financial loss to the state.
Abuga Pele, who is the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Member of Parliament for Chiana-Paga, has pleaded not guilty to charges of abetment of crime and defrauding by false pretence and intentionally misapplying public property.
He has been granted self-recognisance bail.
Assibit, on the other hand, is charged with defrauding by false pretence and dishonestly causing loss to public property and is on a GH¢2 million bail with four sureties.
The state has accused Assibit of putting in false claims that he had secured a $65-million World Bank funding for the creation of one million jobs for the youth, resulting in the government parting with GH¢4.1 million.
Pele is alleged to have acted in a manner resulting in the loss of the amount to the state.

UPDATE: Woyome acquitted and discharged in GHC51.2 million Judgement debt case

Alfred Woyome leaving the court
Alfred Woyome leaving the court
Businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome has been acquitted and discharged on two counts of defrauding by false pretence and causing financial loss to the state.
The state failed to prove he fraudulently obtained GHC51.2 million. The presiding Judge, Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, took on the prosecution for failing to call former Attorney-General, Mrs Betty Mould Iddrisu, Rex Magnus Danquah, Ebo Barton Odro, Paul Asimenu, Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh and others who all had given written opinion that Woyome was entitled to the claim.
He said the State had also failed to put up a defence when Woyome went to the Commercial Court and, therefore, found it absurd for the state to turn around and accuse Woyome of causing financial loss.
The Judge queried, "where lies the charge of causing financial loss when the state failed to fight the case on its merit at the Commercial Court?"
He also said there were inconsistencies in the evidence led by the prosecution's witness.
Based on the foregoing, the court said there was no legal basis for Woyome to be convicted. 
Immediately after the judgement, an elated Woyome was whisked away from court. 
Background 
Woyome was arrested on February 3, 2012 after the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), which was commissioned by the late President John Evans Atta Mills to investigate payment to him, had implicated him for wrongdoing.
He was first arraigned on February 6, 2012 together with three others.
Three others
The three people suspected to have aided Woyome were a Chief State Attorney, Mr Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh; his wife, Mrs Gifty Nerquaye-Tetteh, and the Director of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, Mr Paul Asimenu.
Woyome was initially charged with conspiracy, defrauding by false pretence and corrupting a public officer, while Mr Nerquaye-Tetteh was charged with conspiracy and corrupting a public officer. Asimenu and Mrs Nerquaye-Tetteh were charged with abetment of crime. 
He was alleged to have paid GH¢400,000 to the couple but they and Mr Asimenu were, on June 5, 2012, freed, following the state’s declaration of filing a nolle prosequi to discontinue trying them.
Woyome was, however, re-arraigned and charged with two counts of causing financial loss to the state and defrauding by false pretence.
Feb 13, 2012 – Woyome, was on February 13, 2012 granted a GH¢54 million but his lawyers applied for variation and on February 20, 2012, the bail condition was reviewed and reduced to GH¢20 million. 
Indictments, resignations and dismissals
The interim report of EOCO, which was presented to the President on February 2, 2012, also indicted two former government officials under whose watch the procurement process was carried out. 
They were Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, the Minister of Education, Youth and Sports at the time, and his deputy, Mr O. B. Amoah. But Mr Osafo-Maafo secured a court order which, declared EOCO’s investigation of him as illegal.
He also testified as a prosecution witness and ended his examination-in-chief on July 30, 2012.
A fallout from the Woyome scandal led to the dismissal of the then Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Mr Martin Amidu, who later managed to secure judgement against Woyome at the Supreme Court.
It also led to the resignation of the Minister of Education, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, who, as Attorney General and Minister of Justice, had recommended that the money be paid to Woyome.
Witnesses
The prosecution called nine witnesses but Woyome did not call any. He testified on his own behalf.
The crux of the prosecution’s case is that Woyome put in false claims by stating he was entitled to the amount because government had abrogated a contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008 when in fact there was no such contract.
Woyome on his part is arguing he was entitled to the money because a court of competent jurisdiction (Commercial Court) awarded him a default judgement in 2010 after the state had failed to put in a defence.
The prosecution, which has since closed its case, began calling its witnesses in June 2012.
Persons who testified on behalf of the state were Mrs Mangowa Ghanney of the MOFEP; Mr Osafo-Maafo; a former Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr Kwaku Agyeman Manu; Ms Yvonne Quansah of MOFEP and a former Deputy Governor of the Bank of Ghana (BoG), Mr Lionel Van Lare Dosoo.
Ms Lesley Dodoo of the Public Procurement Authority; Mr Andrea Orlandi, then Managing Director of Waterville Holdings, and Mr Ahmed Sulemana, the acting Chief Director of the Ministry of Justice, and the investigator in the case, Assistant Superintendent of Police Mr Odame Okyere, also testified.
 Woyome had sued the state for a breach of contract relating to the construction of some stadia for the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations hosted by Ghana and was awarded a default judgement to that tune because the state failed to put in a defence.
Submission of no case
Woyome on February 27, 2014 filed a submission of no case after the state had closed its case but the court on April 30, 2014 ordered him to open his defence. He opened his defence on May 6, 2014 and ended on December 12, 2014.
Supreme Court on Woyome’s heels
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is on the heels of Woyome to refund the GHC51.2 million.
The highest court of the land on July 29, 2014, ordered Woyome to refund GH¢51.2 million to the state on the grounds that he got the money out of unconstitutional and invalid contracts between the state and Waterville Holdings Limited in 2006 for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008.
It held, in a unanimous decision, that the contracts upon which Woyome made and received the claim were in contravention of Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which requires such contracts to be laid before and approved by Parliament.
The 11-member court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, was ruling on a review application filed by a former Attorney- General and Minister of Justice, Mr Martin Amidu. 
Other members of the panel were Justices Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Owusu, Jones Dotse, Anin Yeboah, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, N. S. Gbadegbe, Vida Akoto Bamfo, A. A. Bennin and J.B. Akamba.
June 14, 2013 judgement
The court had on June 14, 2013, directed the international construction firm, Waterville Holdings Limited (BVI), to refund all the money paid to it by the Ghana government on the premise that it had no valid and constitutional contractual agreement with the government.
Waterville is expected to refund 25 million euros it received from the government, following the court’s judgement that the said contract it entered into with the government for stadia construction for CAN 2008 was unconstitutional.
Mr Amidu had, in the original suit, prayed the court to order Woyome to refund the money he had received as a result of the void contract the government had entered into with Waterville Holdings.
But the court declined jurisdiction over the issue, with the reason that the Attorney-General was pursuing the matter at the Commercial Court to retrieve the money.
The review
According to the applicant, who filed the application for review on July 12, 2013, he had read the two judgements delivered by the Supreme Court very carefully, along with other Ghanaians of like thinking, and had come to the conclusion that some aspects of the judgement contained “exceptional circumstances that have resulted in what we perceive may constitute a miscarriage of justice”.
He said the 1992 Constitution imposed both rights and obligations, particularly under articles 2 and 3, on every Ghanaian citizen to ensure that the constitutional order established by the Constitution was not threatened or by an unlawful means abrogated. 
The court in its July 29, 2014 decision upheld Mr Amidu’s review application and granted his prayer.
Enforcement
The Attorney-General has since filed an application to enforce the Supreme Court’s July 29, 2014 judgement.
Hearing of the application has been adjourned indefinitely to enable bailiffs to serve hearing notices on Woyome and Waterville Holdings.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Judgment day for Woyome tomorrow

Alfred Woyome
He is now a household name as he is known by even children in Ghana. His name elicits controversy and debate in all circles — politics, academia, offices, social media and homes. A song has even been composed in his name.

Alfred Agbesi Woyome is the name and his fate as to whether or not he fraudulently obtained GH¢51.2 million from the state will be determined tomorrow, March 12, 2015.
He could be imprisoned or freed, depending on where the scales of justice tilt at the High Court, presided over by Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam.
Woyome was arrested on February 3, 2012 after the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), which had been commissioned by  President John Evans Atta Mills to investigate the payment to him, had implicated him for wrongdoing.
He was first arraigned on February 6, 2012, together with three others. 

Three others

The three people suspected to have aided Woyome are a Chief State Attorney, Mr Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh; his wife, Mrs Gifty Nerquaye-Tetteh, and the Director of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP), Mr Paul Asimenu.
Woyome was initially charged with conspiracy, defrauding by false pretence and corrupting a public officer, while Mr Nerquaye-Tetteh was charged with conspiracy and corrupting a public officer. 
Asimenu and Mrs Nerquaye-Tetteh were charged with abetment of crime. 
Woyome was alleged to have paid GH¢400,000 to the couple, but they and Mr Asimenu were, on June 5, 2012, freed following the state’s filing of a nolle prosequi to discontinue trying them.
Woyome was, however, re-arraigned and charged with two counts of causing financial loss to the state and defrauding by false pretence.
He was, on February 13, 2012, granted a GH¢54 million bail, but his lawyers applied for variation and on February 20, 2012 the bail condition was reviewed and reduced to GH¢20 million. 

Indictments, resignations and dismissals

The interim report of EOCO, which was presented to the President on February 2, 2012, also indicted two former government officials under whose watch the procurement process was carried out. 
They were Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, the Minister of Education, Youth and Sports at the time, and his deputy, Mr O. B. Amoah. 
But Mr Osafo-Maafo secured a court order which declared EOCO’s investigation of him as illegal.
He also testified in the Woyome case as a prosecution witness and ended his examination-in-chief on July 30, 2012.
A fallout from the Woyome scandal led to the dismissal of the then Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Martin Amidu, who later managed to secure judgement against Woyome at the Supreme Court.
It also led to the resignation of the then Minister of Education, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, who, as Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, had recommended that the money be paid to Woyome.

Witnesses

The prosecution called nine witnesses, but Woyome did not call any. He testified on his own behalf.
The crux of the prosecution’s case was that Woyome put in false claims by stating he was entitled to the amount because the government had abrogated a contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008 when, in fact, there was no such contract.
Woyome, for his part, had argued that he was entitled to the money because a court of competent jurisdiction (Commercial Court) had awarded him a default judgement in 2010 after the state had failed to put in a defence.
 Woyome had sued the state for breach of contract relating to the construction of some stadia for the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations hosted by Ghana.

No case submission 

On February 27, 2014, Woyome filed a submission of ‘no case’ after the state had closed its case, but the court, on April 30, 2014, ordered him to open his defence. 
He opened his defence on May 6, 2014 and ended on December 12, 2014.

Supreme Court on Woyome’s heels

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is on Woyome’s heels to refund the GH¢51.2 million.
The highest court of the land had, on July 29, 2014, ordered Woyome to refund GH¢51.2 million to the state on the grounds that he got the money out of unconstitutional and invalid contracts between the state and Waterville Holdings Limited in 2006 for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008.
It held, in a unanimous decision, that the contracts upon which Woyome made and received the claim were in contravention of Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which requires such contracts to be laid before and approved by Parliament.
The 11-member court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, was ruling on a review application filed by Mr Amidu. 

June 14, 2013 judgement

The court had, on June 14, 2013, directed the international construction firm, Waterville Holdings Limited (BVI), to refund all the money paid to it by the Ghana government on the premise that it had no valid and constitutional contractual agreement with the government.
Waterville is expected to refund 25 million euros it received from the government, following the court’s judgement that the said contract it entered into with the government for stadia construction for CAN 2008 was unconstitutional.
Mr Amidu had, in the original suit, prayed the court to order Woyome to refund the money he had received as a result of the void contract the government had entered into with Waterville Holdings.
But the court declined jurisdiction over the issue, with the reason that the Attorney-General was pursuing the matter at the Commercial Court to retrieve the money.

The review

According to the applicant, who filed the application for review on July 12, 2013, he had read the two judgements delivered by the Supreme Court very carefully, along with other Ghanaians of like thinking, and had come to the conclusion that some aspects of the judgement contained “exceptional circumstances that have resulted in what we perceive may constitute a miscarriage of justice”.
 He said the 1992 Constitution imposed both rights and obligations, particularly under articles 2 and 3, on every Ghanaian citizen to ensure that the constitutional order established by the Constitution was not threatened or by an unlawful means abrogated. 
The court, in its July 29, 2014 decision, upheld Mr Amidu’s review application and granted his prayer.

Enforcement

The Attorney-General has since filed an application to enforce the Supreme Court’s July 29, 2014 judgement.
Hearing of the application has been adjourned indefinitely to enable bailiffs to serve hearing notices on Woyome and Waterville Holdings. 


Judgement day for Woyome tomorrow

Alfred Woyome
Alfred Woyome
He is now a household name as he is known by even children in Ghana. His name elicits controversy and debate in all circles — politics, academia, offices, social media and homes. A song has even been composed in his name.

Alfred Agbesi Woyome is the name and his fate as to whether or not he fraudulently obtained GH¢51.2 million from the state will be determined tomorrow, March 12, 2015.
He could be imprisoned or freed, depending on where the scales of justice tilt at the High Court, presided over by Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam.
Woyome was arrested on February 3, 2012 after the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), which had been commissioned by  President John Evans Atta Mills to investigate the payment to him, had implicated him for wrongdoing.
He was first arraigned on February 6, 2012, together with three others.

Three others

The three people suspected to have aided Woyome are a Chief State Attorney, Mr Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh; his wife, Mrs Gifty Nerquaye-Tetteh, and the Director of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MoFEP), Mr Paul Asimenu.
Woyome was initially charged with conspiracy, defrauding by false pretence and corrupting a public officer, while Mr Nerquaye-Tetteh was charged with conspiracy and corrupting a public officer.
Asimenu and Mrs Nerquaye-Tetteh were charged with abetment of crime.
Woyome was alleged to have paid GH¢400,000 to the couple, but they and Mr Asimenu were, on June 5, 2012, freed following the state’s filing of a nolle prosequi to discontinue trying them.
Woyome was, however, re-arraigned and charged with two counts of causing financial loss to the state and defrauding by false pretence.
He was, on February 13, 2012, granted a GH¢54 million bail, but his lawyers applied for variation and on February 20, 2012 the bail condition was reviewed and reduced to GH¢20 million.

Indictments, resignations and dismissals

The interim report of EOCO, which was presented to the President on February 2, 2012, also indicted two former government officials under whose watch the procurement process was carried out.
They were Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, the Minister of Education, Youth and Sports at the time, and his deputy, Mr O. B. Amoah.
But Mr Osafo-Maafo secured a court order which declared EOCO’s investigation of him as illegal.
He also testified in the Woyome case as a prosecution witness and ended his examination-in-chief on July 30, 2012.
A fallout from the Woyome scandal led to the dismissal of the then Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Mr Martin Amidu, who later managed to secure judgement against Woyome at the Supreme Court.
It also led to the resignation of the then Minister of Education, Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu, who, as Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, had recommended that the money be paid to Woyome.

Witnesses

The prosecution called nine witnesses, but Woyome did not call any. He testified on his own behalf.
The crux of the prosecution’s case was that Woyome put in false claims by stating he was entitled to the amount because the government had abrogated a contract for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008 when, in fact, there was no such contract.
Woyome, for his part, had argued that he was entitled to the money because a court of competent jurisdiction (Commercial Court) had awarded him a default judgement in 2010 after the state had failed to put in a defence.
 Woyome had sued the state for breach of contract relating to the construction of some stadia for the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations hosted by Ghana.

No case submission 

On February 27, 2014, Woyome filed a submission of ‘no case’ after the state had closed its case, but the court, on April 30, 2014, ordered him to open his defence.
He opened his defence on May 6, 2014 and ended on December 12, 2014.

Supreme Court on Woyome’s heels

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is on Woyome’s heels to refund the GH¢51.2 million.
The highest court of the land had, on July 29, 2014, ordered Woyome to refund GH¢51.2 million to the state on the grounds that he got the money out of unconstitutional and invalid contracts between the state and Waterville Holdings Limited in 2006 for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008.
It held, in a unanimous decision, that the contracts upon which Woyome made and received the claim were in contravention of Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which requires such contracts to be laid before and approved by Parliament.
The 11-member court, presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Georgina Theodora Wood, was ruling on a review application filed by Mr Amidu.

June 14, 2013 judgement

The court had, on June 14, 2013, directed the international construction firm, Waterville Holdings Limited (BVI), to refund all the money paid to it by the Ghana government on the premise that it had no valid and constitutional contractual agreement with the government.
Waterville is expected to refund 25 million euros it received from the government, following the court’s judgement that the said contract it entered into with the government for stadia construction for CAN 2008 was unconstitutional.
Mr Amidu had, in the original suit, prayed the court to order Woyome to refund the money he had received as a result of the void contract the government had entered into with Waterville Holdings.
But the court declined jurisdiction over the issue, with the reason that the Attorney-General was pursuing the matter at the Commercial Court to retrieve the money.

The review

According to the applicant, who filed the application for review on July 12, 2013, he had read the two judgements delivered by the Supreme Court very carefully, along with other Ghanaians of like thinking, and had come to the conclusion that some aspects of the judgement contained “exceptional circumstances that have resulted in what we perceive may constitute a miscarriage of justice”.
 He said the 1992 Constitution imposed both rights and obligations, particularly under articles 2 and 3, on every Ghanaian citizen to ensure that the constitutional order established by the Constitution was not threatened or by an unlawful means abrogated.
The court, in its July 29, 2014 decision, upheld Mr Amidu’s review application and granted his prayer.

Enforcement

The Attorney-General has since filed an application to enforce the Supreme Court’s July 29, 2014 judgement.
Hearing of the application has been adjourned indefinitely to enable bailiffs to serve hearing notices on Woyome and Waterville Holdings.