Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Application for direction - SUPREME COURT TO SIT MARCH 14

 March 5, 2013 (Lead Story)

The Supreme Court will on Thursday, March 14, 2013, hear an application for directions on issues to be set out for trial in a petition challenging the legitimacy of President John Dramani Mahama.
The issues include whether or not persons were allowed to vote without undergoing prior biometric verification and whether or not votes cast exceeded ballot papers issued to voters at polling stations during the polls in some polling stations.
The petitioners are also pleading with the Supreme Court to allow them and the respondents to make audiovisual presentations for an expeditious trial.
They are again praying the court to permit parties in the case to exchange documents and evidence to be relied on, seven days before hearing of the substantive case begins.
Another request being made by the petitioners is that the court should direct each party to present a list of witnesses; a brief summary of the relevant nature of each witness’s testimony to enable the court to determine the “probative value” of evidence or testimony witnesses intend to lead in court.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court fixed the date after lawyers for the petitioners filed application for directions at the Supreme Court registry yesterday.
The Petitioners

The petitioners, Nana Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, filed the petition at the highest court of the land praying the court to annul votes cast in 11,916 polling stations due to what they termed “gross and widespread irregularities”.
They had in a December 28, 2012 petition called for the annulment of votes cast in 4,709 polling stations but amended their petition on February 9, 2013 after the court had granted them permission to do so, and cited 11,916 polling stations as the total number of polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded.
The three had initially called for the cancellation of 1,342,845 valid votes cast during the election at 4,709 polling stations due to the alleged irregularities recorded during the elections, but are now urging the Supreme Court to pronounce additional 3,327,659 valid votes cast as invalid.
The Supreme Court on February 7, 2013 granted the petitioners’ prayer of amendment, and accordingly allowed the amendment.
Respondents

President Mahama, who is the first respondent, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC), the second and third respondents respectively, have filed their responses.
They have all refuted the petitioners’ allegations on the grounds that President Mahama won the elections legitimately in the full glare of the media and local and international election observers.
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) applied to join the petition on December 31, 2012 and was duly granted permission by a 6-3 majority decision of the Supreme Court on January 22, 2013.
Issues for trial

The issues the petitioners are praying the court to set out for trial include whether or not voting took place without prior biometric verification at many polling stations across the country; ballots that were cast without prior biometric verification were taken into account by the EC in the declaration of results; different results were recorded in the statement of poll and results at polling stations bearing the same codes were declared for the office of President.
Other issues are whether or not there were 28 locations where voting took place and which according to the petitioners were not part of the officially sanctioned 26,002 polling stations; aggregate instances of statutory and regulatory violations of widespread instances of malpractices or irregularities affected the results of the presidential polls of December 7 and 8, 2012; votes recorded or results on declaration forms as a result of the said statutory violations/malpractices/irregularities should be annulled.
The rest are whether or not instances where the total number of votes cast exceeded the total number of registered voters at cited polling stations and whether or not  votes cast exceeded ballot papers issued to voters at polling stations during the polls.
More joinders

Meanwhile, more than 50 persons have filed nine different applications to join the petition. The applicants are bringing the applications in their capacity as citizens who cast their ballots during the December 7 and 8, 2012 polls.
The applicants are from polling stations, constituencies and regions where alleged irregularities have been cited by the petitioners.
The applications were filed on their behalf by Urafiki Law Consult, a law firm in Tema.
According to the applicants, their attention had been drawn to the petitioners’ prayer for votes to be annulled in 11,916 polling stations, and since they were citizens who cast their ballots and witnessed what happened on voting day, they did not want their votes to be annulled.
They said they wanted to be heard by the court because it was their right under Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution to vote.
According to the applicants, it would be unjust for their votes to be annulled because they underwent biometric verification before casting their ballots.

Human Rights Court restrains NACOB

 March 5, 2013 (page 20)

The Human Rights Division of the Fast Track High Court has restrained the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) and its disciplinary panel from holding any disciplinary proceedings into the alleged conduct of two officials.
The order was directed at the Executive Secretary and the Governing Board of NACOB following a motion for interim injunction filed on behalf of the two officials by their lawyers, Mr Andy Appiah-Kubi and Mr Emmanuel Bright Atokoh.
The main motion is to be moved on Thursday, March 7, 2013.
According to Mr Appiah-Kubi, during the pendency of the application, the restraint applied.
The two officials, Nana Sanzah Erzah and Fatimatu Abadulai, filed an application praying the court to restrain their employers from instituting disciplinary proceedings against them after they had been discharged by another court.
In granting the application, the court, stated, “It is hereby ordered that the Executive Secretary and the Governing Board of the Narcotics Control Board and, indeed, the disciplinary panel are restrained from holding any disciplinary proceedings into the alleged conduct of the applicants in the interim until the application is heard on its merit when notice would have been given to them.”
 Nana  Ezrah and Ms  Abdulai were among six officials of NACOB who were interdicted in August 2011 for allegedly aiding drug traffickers at the Kotoka International Airport (KIA).
The Accra Circuit Court had, on November 6, 2011, discharged the six officials, together with four others, including three policemen, for want of prosecution.
The court, presided over by Mr Francis Obiri, in discharging the accused persons, said, “I do not think it is a good path for us to take if accused persons will be arraigned before court but will not be prosecuted. I think this may open the floodgates for people to make unsubstantiated allegations against people and will only go to sleep.”
The other NACOB officials are Mr Denis Adutwum Gyimah, Mr Timothy Abolimpoh, Mr Mutawakilu Yahaya Iddi and Mr Jerry John Kwesi Abiw.
Although the three policemen — Eric Darko Akuffo, Yakubu Issah and Peter Asong — were reinstated into the Ghana Police Service in December 2011, the NACOB officials were recalled only on February 11, this year.
However, three days after they had resumed duty, the Executive Secretary of NACOB, Mr Yaw Akrasi Sarpong, per a February 14, 2013 letter, invited the six officials to appear before a disciplinary panel to be investigated for misconduct, failure to perform in a proper manner duties reposed in them, abuse of office, breach of the confidence that NACOB reposed in them and conducting themselves in such a manner that tended to bring NACOB into disrepute.
But even before the disciplinary panel, chaired by Mr Francis Torkonoo, could start its work on February 18, 2013, two of the affected officials, Nana Sanzah Ezrah and Ms Fatimatu Abdulai, secured an interim injunction from the Human Rights Court to restrain the executive secretary and the governing board of NACOB and the disciplinary panel from holding any disciplinary proceedings against the officials.
Story by Mabel Aku Baneseh

Writer's email: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh

Benin, Togo ask for more power from Ghana

March 2, 2013 (Page 3 )
Benin and Togo have made a joint request to the Ghana government to supply them with more power, since their power situation is more desperate than Ghana’s.
“Ghanaians are undergoing power crisis, but Benin and Togo are in darkness. We are desperate and are pleading with the government to supply both countries with more power,” the Minister of Energy of Benin, Mr Barthelemy D. Kassa, pleaded.
During an interaction with his Ghanaian counterpart, Mr Emmanuel Kofi-Armah Buah, Mr Kassa said, “We know you are in difficulty, but we are more desperate. We are in darkness.”
Mr Kassa, who was the leader of a four-member delegation which held discussions with Mr Buah on Friday evening, acknowledged the fact that Ghana was undergoing energy crisis but noted, “The situation in Benin and Togo is worse.”
Ghana has reduced the contractual supply of power to Benin and Togo from 90 MW to 35 MW after the destruction of a pipeline belonging to the West Africa Gas Pipeline Project (WAGP) in August 2012.
The cut in power supply to the two countries has resulted in massive load shedding and power disruption in Togo and Benin between eight and 12 hours or more daily.
Mr Kassa looked worried, apprehensive and expectant when he pleaded with the minister to compromise and increase the power supply slightly upwards, but Mr Buah was firm and said Ghana could only help when the situation in the country normalised.
Mr Buah’s response created more distress for Mr Kassa and his team, who shoved diplomacy aside and displayed open worry.
Other members of the Beninois delegation were Benin’s Ambassador to Ghana, Mr Assounan Nouhouoi; the Director General of CEB — the power generating company for Togo/Benin — Mr Salifou Djibril, and the Director General of the Electricity Company of Benin, Mr Marius Z. Hounkpatin.
According to Mr Kassa, power rationing in Togo and Benin had caused serious distress to individuals and businesses in those countries, but Mr Buah remained resolute and maintained his position.
Throwing more light on the issue to the Daily Graphic, Mr Djibril, who spoke English, said the situation was so bad that most companies were making losses, adding, “Parliamentary and local elections will be held in both countries and our people are saying, ‘no power, no vote’.”
Mr Buah explained that Ghana had experienced a shortfall in energy supply of about 250 MW as a result of the disruptions in the gas supply by the West Africa Gas Pipeline (WAGP).
He said individuals and businesses in Ghana were currently going through similar distress as a result of the load-shedding programme, but Mr Kassa interjected and stated, “We are desperate and in deeper stress than Ghana.”
Mr Buah said the recent visit by President Mahama to the Takoradi T3 Thermal Plant, the WAGP and the Bui Dam was a clear indication of the government’s resolve to improve the power situation by the end of April.
Explaining the position of Ghana on the issue, he assured his Beninois counterpart that Ghana would restore its full contractual supply to Benin and Togo as soon as gas from WAGP was restored.
To show Ghana’s commitment to assist its neighbours, a communique was signed between the delegation and the Ministry of Energy at the end of the meeting.
As part of the agreement, 15 MW of power out of 132 MW will be supplied to the two countries when the Takoradi T3 Plant goes into commercial operation in the next two weeks.
An additional 15 MW of power will be supplied from the Bui Hydro Plant when it goes into commercial operation with its first unit in May.
“The full contractual quantity of 90 MW continuous will be supplied when the West African Gas Pipeline is back in service,” the communique signed by the two ministers stated.
The delegation expressed concern over the transmission service charge and the meeting agreed that a technical committee comprising officers from the two sides would meet to discuss the details and come up with the necessary recommendations.
Ghana’s team included the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Volta River Authority (VRA), Mr Kweku Awotwi; the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of GRIDCo; Mr C. A. Darku, and the Deputy Director of Power at the Ministry of Energy, Mr Solomon Adjetey.
Other members of the Ghana group were the Manager of GRIDCo’s System Control, Mr Frank Otchere; the Director of Systems Operations, Mr Bernard Modey, and a manager at VRA, Mr Ebow Aquah.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

US firm finds oil in Ghanaian waters

 MORE oil and gas have been discovered in the deep sea off Cape Three points by a company from the United States of America (USA).
The company, Hess Corporation, has successfully completed the drilling of seven oil wells which contain crude oil in commercial quantities.
In an official communication to its investors on the New York Stock Exchange on February 28, 2013, Hess said it had “completed drilling of its seventh consecutive successful exploratory well on the Deepwater Tano/Cape Three Points block offshore Ghana”.
Hess Corporation is a leading global independent energy company primarily engaged in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas and the marketing of refined petroleum products, natural gas and electricity.
The seven drilled wells have been labelled as Paradise-1, Hickory North-1, Beech-1, Almond-1, Pecan-1, Cob-1 and Pecan North-1.
Paradise-1 was found to contain both oil and gas, while Hickory North-1 contains large quantities of gas.
The company said the Pecan North-1 well, which was the last well to be drilled, was located approximately seven miles northeast of another well dubbed “Pecan-1 well”.
The drilling of the wells spanned a period of three years.
Following the successful drilling of its seventh well, the company has begun pre-development studies on the Deepwater/Tano Cape Three Points block where oil and gas has been discovered.
The company said it now intended to “submit appraisal plans for the various discoveries to the Ghana government for approval on or before June 2, 2013”.
According to Hess, it had achieved “outstanding drilling performance in terms of drilling time and cost per foot with gross costs averaging $40 million per well for the last three wells, including success case logging”.
The wells were drilled by the Stena Drillmax drill ship in a range of water depths between 5,623 and 8,245 feet.
In an interview, the Minister of Energy and Petroleum, Mr Kofi Armah Buah, confirmed the discovery made by Hess Corporation and expressed the hope that more discoveries would be made in the future.
Ghana joined the club of oil producing countries when oil was discovered in commercial quantities by Kosmos Energy and its partners in June 2007.
Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh

Friday, March 1, 2013

ALL VOTERS USED BIOMETRIC - EC says in response to amended petition

 March 1, 2013 (Lead Story)

The Electoral Commission (EC) says no voter was allowed to cast his/her ballot without undergoing biometric verification.
It said upon being served with the further and better particulars by the petitioners on 11,916 polling stations where alleged irregularities took place, it examined and analysed its records, adding, “the analysis confirmed that, no voters were allowed to vote without verification at any polling station.”
In an amended response filed at the registry of the Supreme Court on its behalf by its solicitors, Lynes, Quashie-Idun and Co., the EC denied claims that voters were allowed to vote without undergoing verification, adding that voting continued on December 8, 2012 at about 400 polling stations where slowness or malfunction of machines was recorded on voting day on December 7, 2012.
In any case, the EC made reference to a Commonwealth Observer Group report on the elections which recommended that, “the Electoral Commission should review the exceptions to the current practice on the use of the biometric verification device to minimise the number of elderly people being refused to vote due to the difficulty in matching the fingerprints.”
According to the EC, the request by petitioners that the number of votes cast at polling stations listed by them (petitioners) should be nullified “is entirely without merit and should be refused.”
The petition

The petitioners, Nana Akufo-Addo, his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, had in their December 28, 2012, petition called for the annulment of votes cast in 4,709 polling stations but amended their petition on February 9, 2013 after the court had granted them permission to do so, and cited 11,916 polling stations as the total number of polling stations, where alleged irregularities were recorded.
They had initially called for the cancellation of 1,342,845 valid votes cast during the election at 4,709 polling stations due to what they termed “gross and widespread irregularities” recorded during the elections, but are now praying the Supreme Court to pronounce additional 3,327,659 valid votes cast during the elections as invalid.
The Supreme Court on January 7, 2013, granted the petitioners’ prayer of amendment, and accordingly allowed the amendment, thereby, making 11,916 polling stations the official figure before the court’s records.
Respondents

Joined to the petition was the winner of the 2012 presidential polls, President Mahama, while the EC, which conducted the elections was sued as an entity.
The National Democratic Congress (NDC) applied to join the petition on December 31, 2012 and was duly granted permission by a 6-3 majority decision of the Supreme Court on January 22, 2013.
Thus the President is the first respondent while the EC and the NDC are second and third respondents respectively.
EC’s examination and analysis

The EC said upon being served with the further and better particulars, it conducted an examination and analysis which showed that “2,009 pink sheets that the petitioners claimed to be unsigned, 1,099 were in fact signed by the presiding officers at the polling stations or, at the instance of the returning officers at the collation centres; 905 were unsigned, representing 3.5 per cent of the total number of pink sheets nationwide.
“And, 1,989 pink sheets, representing 99 per cent of the number claimed to be unsigned, were signed by the polling or counting agents of candidates. Thus the second respondent maintains that the request by the petitioners that votes cast at the said polling stations are invalid and should be deducted is without merit and should be refused,” the EC submitted.
“It should also be noted that when several pages of paper impregnated with a carbon are used in order to have several copies of each page, it could happen that if the person signing or writing thereon does not press hard enough on the paper, the signature or writing could appear faint or illegible on some of the pages,” the EC explained in response to claims that several pink sheets were without signatures.

EC denies allegations

According to the EC, there was no single shred of evidence to suggest that the total number of votes cast exceeded the number of voters on the register.
The EC  further stated the petitioners failed to comply with the court’s rulings of February 5 and 7, 2013, to provide particulars of the alleged other 28 locations where voting took place.
It said upon careful examination and analysis of the petitioners particulars, there was no justification for the deduction of votes from the votes cast in favour of the various presidential candidates.
“It should be kept in mind that all agents (of candidates) present at each polling station were given copies of the certified results of the polling station,” adding, it was clear some representatives had presented “incomplete or inaccurate constituency data to sustain the allegation of discrepancies which the second respondent considers to be heart of this suit,” the EC said in its amended answer.
The EC said the call by the petitioners for the cancellation of votes cast at where “a polling station used for the presidential and parliamentary election was also used for special voting (by security personnel etc.), that polling station kept the same code number through the results of the Special Voting and the results of the voting on December 7 and 8, 2012, were given separately,” should be invalidated, “should be refused as being unjustified and entirely without merit.”

More denials

The EC also denied any irregularities and electoral malpractices as well as working deliberately to unlawfully assist President Mahama to win the 2012 presidential poll.
On allegations that the EC failed to provide the NPP with a provisional register of voters for each polling station in accordance with Regulation 21 (2) of the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulation, 2012, (C. I. 72), thereby, denying the petitioners and their party from effectively verifying the names on the list, to ascertain their authenticity; the EC said, “throughout the biometric period, the second respondent, in compliance with the regulations, gave political parties, including the NPP, daily printouts of the registrations effected at each registration centre.”
It stated that the EC declined to halt the declaration of results on December 9, 2012 because the party hierarchy which prayed it to halt the declaration in the presence of members of the National Peace Council was either provided with inaccurate or wrong data by polling agents.
It, however, conceded that “the figure of 14,158,890 registered voters stated in the declaration of results was an error occasioned by picking the wrong figure. The number of registered voters which should have been picked was 14,031,793” and which was duly posted on the EC’s website.
“In this context, it is important to emphasise that this error has no bearing whatsoever on the total votes cast in the election and, consequently, the valid votes obtained by each candidate. The error would only affect the voter turnout percentage and change it from 79.43 per cent to 80.15 per cent,” the statement explained.
On the petitioners claim of late submission of the voters’ register to the NPP, the statement denied that allegation and said “the NPP and the NDC, being the two parties with candidates in all constituencies in Ghana, were the first to receive the final voters register from the EC as of November 21, 2012, one week after the Interparty Advisory Committee (IPAC) meeting held on November 14, 2012.”
“One must mention that the preparation of the paper or hard copy version of the final voters register comprising 26,002 polling stations was a mammoth exercise and some of the smaller parties are to yet collect, from the premises of the second respondent, the huge stack of paper that awaited them,” the EC maintained.
The statement denied the petitioners claims that the total number of registered voters in the presidential election exceeded that of registered voters for the parliamentary elections by 127,210 and held that the same register was used for both the presidential and parliamentary elections
It said in a “mischievous attempt” to buttress baseless accusations made by them to the media, the petitioners deliberately used an erroneous figure of 14,158,880 instead of 10,995,262 as the total number of votes cast in favour of the contesting presidential candidates among others.
In response to the petitioners claim that an “invisible sleight of hand, which transmogrified the total number of registered voters from 14,031,680 to 14,158,890, remained inexplicable to date; the EC said, “the second respondent says that the genuine error made by it with regard to the total number of registered voters is fully explained …,and therefore, cannot be by any stretch of imagination be described as a transmogrification.”
The EC further held that in a stern but a lighter note that, the Farlex Dictionary describes transmogrification, “as the process of complete and usually extreme or grotesque change from one state or form to another; the transmogrification of a prince to a porcupine.”
It argued that it was important to recall that, “in both the presidential and parliamentary elections, at each polling station, representatives of the candidates are present, and verification and voting are carried out in public view.”
“Furthermore, immediately after the close of the poll, votes cast are counted in the full glare of the public and are recorded and are announced to the public. It is to be noted that agents have the right to ask for a recount of the votes or to refuse to sign the Declaration Form and give their reasons for the refusal.”
The EC has attached exhibits to prove its claim that the elections were held on a clean sheet and results declared were accurate and credible.

All is set

All is set for hearing of the substantive petition barring any last minute hiccup. This follows the filing of the necessary issues by the parties in the case.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court is expected to communicate a date to parties in the case in the next few days.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Case against A-G, IGP struck out

 February 28, 2013 (Not published)

THE Supreme Court today struck out a writ which prayed it to declare as unconstitutional, the re-arrest of persons by the police immediately they are discharged by a court.
According to the court, the case had merit but it could best be handled by the Human Rights Court.
The court advised the plaintiff to re-strategise because the issues raised were not to be swept under the carpet.
The plaintiff, Eric Delanyo Alifo, a lawyer and Executive Director of Help Law Ghana through his solicitor, Mr Augustines Obour, had filed the writ praying the court to declare as unconstitutional a popular practice by the police where discharged accused persons were re-arrested and put before another court on the same offences.
He had also prayed the court to declare as illegal, the practice where police officers served as independent witnesses while suspects gave their statements to police as well as the practice where lawyers were denied private conference with their clients, who were in custody.
The respondents in the case were the Attorney-General and the Inspector General of Police (IGP).
But the court, in dismissing the application after the applicants had withdrawn it, held that the issues raised by the applicant were human rights issues which could be handled by the Human Rights Court.
 The court also held that the issues raised by the applicant were too generalised, and accordingly advised the applicant, to narrow down on a particular case or two to be used as references.
While commending and expressing appreciation at the efforts of the applicant to seek the court’s intervention in addressing pressing issues, the court said it would not entertain matters which did not need constitutional interpretation.
The court was presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba with Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Mrs Justice Rose Owusu, Mr Justice Annin Yeboah, Mr Jones Dotse, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo as panel members.
The applicant had conceded that the issues raised did not need constitutional interpretation after the court had raised a number of questions.
 Mr Obour later informed journalists that his client based his case on the re-arrest of accused persons after they had been discharged by a court of competent jurisdiction, and their subsequent re-arraignment before another court on the same offences on Article 14 of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantees the liberty of persons.
On the issue relating to police officers serving as independent witnesses, counsel said Section 120 of the Evidence Act allowed that but a current Supreme Court decision had nullified that procedure.
He cited Kwaku Frimpong versus the Republic as the case in which police officers had been barred from serving as independent witnesses.
 Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh.

Akufo-Addo's petition lacks merit - Prez Mahama declares

February 28, 2013 (Page 16 & 22)

 PRESIDENT John Dramani Mahama has said the petitioners challenging his declaration as the winner of the December 7, 2012 polls have failed to provide evidence on how the election results were tampered with.
He said despite the orders of the Supreme Court dated February 5, 2013 and directed at the petitioners to provide him with particulars of the manner in which the results of the presidential election were tampered with, the petitioners had “refused to do so”.
In a response to the amended petition dated February 26, 2013, President Mahama denied claims of irregularities and accordingly prayed the court to dismiss the entire petition, “since it lacks merit”.
In a response filed on his behalf by his lawyer, Mr Tony Lithur, the President said it was acknowledged by all observers, domestic, as well as international, that “the conduct of the elections had been generally free, fair, as well as transparent”.
The petitioners, the presidential candidate of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) in the December 2012 elections, Nana Akufo-Addo; his running mate, Dr Mahamadu Bawumia, and the Chairman of the NPP, Mr Jake Obetsebi-Lamptey, had, in their December 28, 2012 petition, called for the annulment of votes cast in 4,709 polling stations but amended their petition on January 31, 2013 and cited 11,916 polling stations as the total number of polling stations where alleged irregularities were recorded.
They had initially called for the cancellation of 1,342,845 valid votes cast during the election at 4,709 polling stations due to what they termed “gross and widespread irregularities” recorded during the elections but are now praying the Supreme Court to pronounce an additional 3,327,659 valid votes cast during the elections as invalid.
The Supreme Court, on January 5, 2013, granted the petitioners’ prayer of amendment and accordingly allowed the amendment, thereby making 11,916 polling stations the official figure in the court’s records.

President’s response
According to President Mahama, to the knowledge of the petitioners and their polling agents, results were declared at the various polling stations after “painstaking public and transparent sorting and counting and/or collation (and sometimes recounting) at the various polling stations and collation centres, with the full participation of first petitioner’s accredited agents, who did not protest the declared results at the time of their declaration”.
He said the “petitioners’ allegations are brazen with attempts to find excuses for losing the 2012 presidential election”, adding that it was also not true his votes were illegally padded, while those of Nana Akufo-Addo were unlawfully reduced.
The answer to the amended petition also stated that the results declared at all polling stations across the country, as reflected in the pink sheets, were the product of “properly supervised elections in which the petitioners and the NPP, their political party, their polling/or counting agents participated and that in all cases voting was done on the basis of biometric voters register, made available to all political parties prior to the elections”.
In response to claims that the EC failed to provide the NPP with the provisional register of voters in accordance with Regulation 21 (2) of the Public Elections (Registration of Voters), Regulation 2012 (C.I. 72), thereby disabling the petitioners and their party from effectively verifying the names on the list to ascertain their authenticity, President Mahama said the EC made available copies of the voters register to the NDC and the NPP.
He accordingly held that, “there was no unequal treatment” on him, the NDC, the NPP as well as the petitioners and other political parties, “regarding the materials that were made available to them by the second respondent prior to, during or after the elections.”
On allegations that, although, a common register was compiled for both the presidential and parliamentary elections, the total number of registered voters in respect of the presidential election exceeded that of the registered voters for the parliamentary elections by 127,210 voters; the President said to the best of his knowledge and belief, a common register was used for both elections,” and accordingly described the allegations as “clearly false and disingenuous”.
President Mahama refuted allegations that Superlock Technologies Limited (STL) allegedly harboured him, while intercepting faxed results of the elections.
Describing the accusations as “completely false,” he said the attack on the STL offices was “one of the many instances of wanton violence and destruction by NPP supporters during the election and the period after the declaration of the results.”
“Upon receiving information of the attack on the offices of STL, a combined team of representatives of political parties including the NPP, led by Honourable Osafo-Maafo, with their respective information technology experts and the National Peace Council went round and inspected the premises of STL during which visit, it was found that the allegation that the STL was receiving and/or intercepting results of elections before transmitting them to second respondent’s strong room was completely false,” the President’s answer to the amended petition stated.
On the petitioners’ claim that the EC on December 9, 2012 declared the total number of registered voters as 14,158,890 instead of the 14,031,680, the EC had originally furnished political parties with, thereby, showing a disparity of 127,097; the President said that was not true, adding that in any case that had no bearing on the total number of votes cast as well as “wholly irrelevant” to the outcome of the election and present petition.
The answer to the amended petition further contended that the suggestion by petitioners that there were some veiled reasons for the difference between 13,917,366 and the final number of registered voters smacked of utmost “bad faith”.
It said, “assuming without admitting” that some polling stations had the same code numbers, that fact alone would not invalidate the declared results of supervised elections in those polling stations and the votes validly cast.
President Mahama refuted the assertion that 4,670,504 votes had been rendered invalid and must, therefore, be annulled by the Supreme Court on the grounds that, “the statements and calculations contained therein completely lack any basis in law/or fact and should be wholly rejected by the Honourable Court.”
“Anyhow, the results of the presidential elections declared by the second respondent were based on the exercise of the fundamental rights of Ghanaian eligible voters under Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution,” the President said.
In any case, the President stated that quite apart from fingerprint verification, there were other methods of verification permissible under the law and, therefore, the inability of some eligible voters to undergo fingerprint verification, through no fault of theirs, could, therefore, not form the basis for depriving such voters of their fundamental rights under Article 42 of the 1992 Constitution.
The President affirmed that any electoral laws and/or directives, the effect of which would be to invalidate the votes of such persons, who had properly presented themselves at polling stations to vote, and had been duly identified as registered voters in the biometric electoral register, would be inconsistent with Article 42 of the Constitution, and therefore, unconstitutional.”
According to the President, the results of the election were publicly declared at the various polling stations and constituencies and were matters of public knowledge, adding, “the results were the product of painstaking, public and transparent sorting and counting and/or collation (and sometimes re-counting) at the various polling stations and collation centres with the full participation of the petitioner’s accredited polling and/or counting agents, and those of other contesting political parties, who certified such results by appending signatures to the declaration forms.”
On allegations that all irregularities and electoral malpractices were a deliberate, well-calculated and executed ploy to unlawfully assist the President to win the elections and thus subvert the sovereign will of the people, the President said, it was rather the petitioners who were by the present petition, seeking to subvert the constitution, undermine the integrity of the EC and the whole electoral system and the “sovereign will of the people of Ghana by demanding from the Honourable Court an order annulling the results of the exercise of their fundamental rights under the Constitution.”
The President intends to cite the reported cases including Tehn Addy v Electoral Commission [1996-97] SCGLR 589; Apaloo v Electoral Commission [1996-97] SCGLR 253; Election of the First President, In Re: Appiah v Attorney General [1969] 2G&G 530; Tuffuor v Attorney General (1980) GLR 637; Fenuku v John Teye [2001-2002] SCGLR 985; Buhari v Obasanjo 9 2005) 2NWLR (pt. 910) 214; Re Agyepong (Decd): Poku v Abosi and Another [1982-83] 2GLR 475 to prove his innocence.
The President also plans to rely on the 1992 Constitution and other statutes including: The Presidential Elections Act, 1992, PNDCL 285; The Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012, (C. I. 72); The Public Elections Regulations, 2012, C. I. 75; The Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012, (C. I. 74) and The Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323) and to affirm his position that he was the truly elected candidate in the December 7, 2012 elections.

NDC’s response to amended petition
In another development, the NDC has also responded to the amended petition filed on February 26, 2013 at the Supreme Court registry.
In its response, the NDC argued that the “particulars of the categories of alleged irregularities set out by the petitioners clearly overlap, and, therefore, adding the votes in these categories as the petitioners have done, amounts to double/multiple counting and is part of a pattern of obfuscation resorted to by petitioners to create an appearance of a real issue when there is none.”
It said it won the elections in eight out of 10 regions in the country and further argued that, “in bringing this petition before the honourable court, petitioners are acting in bad faith and that the petition is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the this honourable court.”
“The results of the parliamentary elections that were also held on the same days were announced by officials of second respondent in the various constituencies and showed that the third respondent won 148 out of 275 seats in Parliament, thus attaining a clear majority, and that the NPP won 123 seats,” the NDC said in its response filed on its behalf by Law Trust Company.
“Members of Parliament, including those who stood on the ticket of the New Patriotic Party, have taken up their seats in Parliament,” the NDC’s response pointed out adding, “petitioners cannot consistently claim that the presidential elections were conducted irregularly, in respect of voter verification, for instance, while acknowledging the validity of the parliamentary elections on the basis of which members of parliament from their party have taken their seats in Parliament.”
The NDC, on whose ticket President Mahama stood for the elections held that polling agents representing the various presidential candidates including Nana Akufo-Addo “were present at the various polling stations and participated fully in all aspects of the process with a view to ensuring that the elections were free, fair and transparent”.
“Petitioners, through the acts of their polling agents at the various polling stations as well as acts of other representatives, clearly acknowledged that the presidential elections were validly conducted and claims to the contrary now by petitioners are an afterthought and in bad faith and cannot be countenanced,” the party held.
According to the NDC, the only point the petitioners began contesting the results of the election was long after vote counting at polling stations throughout the country in the presence of their polling agents when the tallies in the presidential election began to show that Nana Akufo-Addo had lost the election.
The NDC maintained that voters went through a process of verification, and had their identity checked before casting their votes, adding, “the agents of the first petitioner who were present at all polling stations including the 11,916 polling stations were satisfied with the verification process and is belated.”
It said the unclear and unsubstantiated allegations of illegal votes in the petition, were an “attempt by the petitioners to deny certain Ghanaians of their constitutional right without any justification”.
It further buttressed its point by stating that the Coalition of Domestic Election Observers (CODEO) which represented various professional bodies in the country used its well-established methodology for verification of results and thus confirmed the tally of the EC which declared President Mahama as the winner of the polls.
The party also cited media houses as keeping regular tally cards from various polling stations around the country and “reported tallies consistent with that of the second respondent.”
The party further indicated that prior to the declaration of the results on December 9, 2012, the EC gave the petitioners’ party the opportunity to prove allegations of irregularities in the presence of members of the Peace Council “and after consideration, the second respondent found no reason to defer announcement of the election results and proceeded with the said announcement.”
According to the NDC, spokespersons of the petitioners and those of the NPP had given different figures by which they claimed the votes of President Mahama had been illegally inflated “without ever giving a meaningful account of how this occurred.”
The NDC applied for a joinder three days after the filing of the petition and after legal battle between the lawyers for the NDC and the petitioners, the Supreme Court on January 22, 2013 gave the NDC the nod to join the petition.

Legal authorities
The party intends to rely on the Evidence Act, 1975 (NRCD 323); the 1992 Constitution; the Political Parties Act, 2000 (Act 574); the Public Elections (Registration of Voters) Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 72); the Supreme Court, Amendment Rules, 2012 (C.I. 74); the Presidential Elections Act, 1992, PNDCL 285 and the Elections Regulations, 2012 (C.I. 75) to make its case.
The party also intends to cite three reported cases to uphold its position that its candidate won the December 7, 2012 presidential elections.
The General Secretary of the NDC, Mr Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, swore an affidavit in verification of the NDC’s answer to the amended petition.
Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh

Three in court for defrauding energy company

 February 28, 2013 (Page 3 Lead)

THREE persons, who allegedly defrauded an energy company of GHC180,000 under the pretext of selling an abandoned filling station have been remanded in custody by the Accra Circuit Court.
The accused persons -  Hammeh Senare, a parliamentary candidate of the People's National Convention (PNC) in the 2012 general election, Kojo Opoku, a carpenter and Ernest Kofi, trader were remanded to reappear on March 11, 2013.
They pleaded not guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit crime and defrauding by false pretence.
The presiding judge, Mr Francis Obiri, decided to remand the accused persons to prevent them from interfering with investigations.
At the court’s sitting in Accra yesterday, the prosecutor, Chief Superintendent Duute Tuaroka, prayed the court to remand the accused persons since investigations had not been completed.
However, counsel for the accused persons, Mr Emmanuel Bright Akoto, pleaded with the court to grant his clients bail on grounds that the charges upon which his clients were being held were bailable.
According to counsel, his clients had fixed places of abode and would be available to stand trial, but the court declined to grant counsel’s prayer.
The Madina Police picked up the three accused persons for allegedly defrauding the company, Omega Energy Limited of GH¢180,000 under the pretext of selling to  the company an abandoned filling station at Dome, but it later turned out that the said filling station belonged to another person not connected to  the accused persons.
Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh

Prosecution fails to produce witness in Woyome trial

February 13, 2013 (Page 3 Lead)

The state has, for the third consecutive time, failed to produce a witness in the trial involving a businessman, Alfred Agbesi Woyome, who is accused of defrauding the state to the tune of GH¢51.2 million.
A Chief State Attorney, Ms Cynthia Lamptey, yesterday told the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court that the state's witness  was out of the jurisdiction and had promised to be in the country on February 23,  2012.
Ms Lamptey, therefore, pleaded with the court to adjourn the matter to February 28, 2013 to enable the prosecution to have conference with its witness.
The court, presided over by Mr Justice John Ajet-Nasam, obliged and adjourned the case to February 28,  2013.
At the court’s sitting on January 28, 2013, Ms Lamptey informed the court, “We should have brought a witness, but circumstances beyond our control made it impossible to do so.”
She, therefore, pleaded with the court to give the prosecution two weeks to produce a witness to testify on behalf of the state.
The trial judge obliged, making it the third time the prosecution had failed to send a witness to court five weeks after its fourth witness had testified in the matter.
Although yesterday marked the third time the prosecution had fallen short of bringing a witness to court, Ms Lamptey gave an assurance to the court that a witness would be in court at the next hearing.
Woyome was in court, together with his lawyer, Mr Osafo Buabeng.
A fourth prosecution witness, Ms Yvonne Quansah, who is stationed at the Financial Sector Division of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning (MOFEP), testified on December 19, 2012.
Ms Quansah, who has since been discharged for completing her evidence in the trial, told the court that Vamed Engineering, which was represented by Woyome, was shortlisted, together with other companies, for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008.
Woyome is facing two counts of defrauding by false pretences and causing financial loss to the state.
The accused, who has denied any wrongdoing, is alleged to have made fraudulent claims to the government, resulting in the payment of GH¢51.2 million to him.
The three other prosecution witnesses who have testified in the matter are a Deputy Head of the Legal Department of MOFEP, Mrs Mangowa Ghanney; a former Minister of MOFEP, Mr Yaw Osafo-Maafo, and a former Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr Kwaku Agyemang-Manu.
Writer's e-mail: mabel.baneseh@graphic.com.gh

2 Cocaine suspects remanded

 February 27, 2013 (Page 49)

The Accra Fast Track High Court, presided over by Mr Justice Mohammed Habib Logoh, Tuesday remanded into custody the two Nigerians who were picked up for allegedly importing into the country 200 kilogrammes of cocaine.

The alleged owner of the drug, Chief Sunny Ekechukwu Benji Eke, a 53-year-old Nigerian businessman, was remanded together with an alleged accomplice, James  Elekechukwu, 47, a second-hand clothes dealer in Accra.

They are to reappear on March 12, 2013. 

The two have been charged with two counts of engaging in criminal conspiracy and importation of a narcotic drug, while Elekechukwu faces an additional charge of possession of a narcotic drug.
Their pleas were not taken.

The seizure of the drug, said to have a street value of $12 million, has been described as the largest in recent years at the Tema Harbour.

It was concealed in a 40-footer container filled with 1,946 boxes of shampoo imported from Bolivia in South America.

NIB to appeal against court ruling


 February 25, 2013 (Page 3)

THE management of the National Investment Bank (NIB) has indicated its intention to appeal against a judgement of the Commercial Court in Accra which ordered it to pay $60 million to a UK firm.
It also plans to file for an order of stay of execution of the judgement, which was delivered by Mr Justice Amadu Tanko in favour of the plaintiff, Dominion Corporate Trustees Limited, a UK-based offshore company, on Thursday, February 21, 2013.
The court ordered the NIB to pay interest of 11 per cent per annum on the said $60 million to the plaintiff with effect from January 29, 2009 till the date of final payment.
A statement signed by the Head, Customer Service and Public Relations of the NIB, Mr Jerry Nathaniel Halm, and issued in Accra yesterday said, “In as much as the bank regrets the unfortunate and unjustifiable judgement given by the court, it wishes to assure its numerous customers that the bank will immediately exercise its right to file an appeal.”
“The bank is totally convinced that the verdict of the judge did not reflect the facts that were presented before the court and, therefore, believes that the Court of Appeal will uphold its appeal and reverse the orders made by the Commercial Court,” it held.
The bank took the opportunity to assure its clients that the “ruling has not in any way affected the bank’s business with its customers”.
It further assured the customers that their money was safe with the bank, and that ”any information alluding to a collapse of the bank and a loss of customers’ money is totally false”.
In a two-hour ruling, the court held that there was no evidence to support the bank’s allegation of negligence and fraud on the part of the plaintiff and the other defendants, Eland International Ghana Limited and the former Managing Director of the NIB, Mr Daniel Charles Gyimah.
The plaintiff, through its lawyer, Nene Amegatcher, sued the NIB, Eland International Ghana Limited and Mr Gyimah on March 4, 2010, claiming the sum of US$60 million guaranteed by the bank.
By a collateral management agreement dated November 10, 2001, the NIB and Eland International Ghana entered into a binding agreement under which Eland International would order and supply Eland International Ghana Limited with various commodities from abroad on credit.
Under the arrangement, the NIB was to hold the commodities in bond, regulate their sale and put the money realised from the sale in an escrow account which was created and controlled by the NIB and then later remit to Eland International Limited.
As a follow up to the 2001 agreement, the NIB, acting through Mr Gyimah, on May 7, 2007 guaranteed, per Aval, 30 promissory notes issued by Eland International to facilitate the said agricultural projects.
However, by the terms of the Aval guarantee, the plaintiff was entitled, upon maturity of the notes, to claim its value directly from the NIB without recourse to Eland International Ghana Limited.
Accordingly, in January 2009, the plaintiff contacted Ghana International Bank, which was the NIB’s correspondent bank in the United Kingdom, and requested for the payment of the sum of US$60 million being the maturity value of the notes.
Unfortunately, the request was not honoured, resulting in the plaintiff following up by making demands directly on the NIB, only to be told that the NIB had no knowledge whatsoever of the existence of the notes or the guarantee granted on its behalf by Mr Gyimah.
The plaintiff resorted to a court action on March 4, 2010 after its repeated demands yielded no results.
Writer’s e-mail: mabel.baneseh.graphic.com.gh



NIB slapped with $60 million judgement debt

 February 22, 2013 (Page 22)

The National Investment Bank (NIB) suffered a setback yesterday when it was ordered by the Commercial Court in Accra to pay $60 million to Dominion Corporate Trustees Limited, a firm in the United Kingdom (UK).
The bank was also ordered to pay 11 per cent interest on the said amount with effect from January 29, 2009 until the date of final payment of its debt.
Per the orders of the Commercial Court, the bank, as of January 29, 2013, had an outstanding debt of $86.4 million, which includes $26.4 million interest on the amount.
In a two-hour ruling, the court, presided over by Mr Justice Amadu Tanko, held that there was no evidence to support the bank’s allegation of negligence and fraud on the part of the plaintiff and two other defendants, Eland International Ghana Limited and the former Managing Director of the NIB, Mr Daniel Charles Gyimah.

Background to case

The plaintiff, Dominion Corporate Trustees Limited, through its lawyer, Nene Amegatcher, sued the NIB, Eland International Ghana Limited and Mr Gyimah on March 4, 2010, claiming the sum of US$60 million guaranteed by the bank.
By a collateral management agreement dated November 10, 2001, the NIB and Eland International Ghana entered into a binding agreement under which Eland International  would order and supply Eland International Ghana Limited with various commodities from abroad on credit.
Under the arrangement, the NIB was to hold the commodities in bond, regulate their sale and put the money realised from the sale in an escrow account which was created and controlled by the NIB and then later remit to Eland International Limited.
As a follow up to the 2001 agreement, the NIB, acting through Mr Gyimah, on May 7, 2007 guaranteed, per Aval, 30 promissory notes issued by Eland International to facilitate the said agricultural projects.
However, by the terms of the Aval guarantee, the plaintiff was entitled, upon maturity of the notes, to claim its value directly from the NIB without recourse to Eland International Ghana Limited.
Accordingly, in January 2009, the plaintiff contacted Ghana International Bank, which was the NIB’s correspondent bank in the United Kingdom, and requested for the payment of the sum of US$60 million being the maturity value of the notes.
Unfortunately, the request was not honoured, resulting in the plaintiff following up by making demands directly on the NIB, only to be told that NIB had no knowledge whatsoever of the existence of the notes or the guarantee granted on its behalf by Mr Gyimah.
The plaintiff resorted to a court action on March 4, 2010 after its repeated demands yielded no results.

The ruling

Relying extensively on the Companies Code (Act 179), the Banking Act 2004 (Act 673) and other legal authorities, the court held that Mr Gyimah’s authority to issue a promissory note was at the heart of the issues before the court.
According to the court, the fact that Mr Gyimah was the Managing Director of the NIB was not in dispute and for that reason his actions or inaction was on behalf of the NIB.
It said the plaintiff adduced 28 exhibits, as well as ‘mass’ oral evidence, which all pointed to the fact that the NIB ought to be liable for actions made for and on its behalf by Mr Gyimah.
The court held that the NIB board did not raise any queries when Mr Gyimah embarked on the transaction on behalf of the NIB, adding that evidence led in court was “revealing” and led to the issue of “management’s indifference to the transaction”.
It held that a defence witness had led evidence that the NIB received $45 million in liabilities and it was, therefore, “erroneous to say the transaction did not have the blessing of the NIB”.
The court said “an inept corporate attitude” on the part of the NIB should not be a “pretext by which the NIB should renege on its obligations”. adding, “The state of mind of Mr Gyimah was the state of mind of NIB.”

NIB’s response 

The NIB had held that the plaintiff should have known that Mr Gyimah lacked the power to act and had, accordingly, acted “irregularly”, but the court held otherwise and subsequently described the NIB’s tagging of the transaction as fraudulent and forged as “smuggled”.
According to the court, the NIB failed to “impeach, contradict and rebut” the evidence of the plaintiff, adding that the bank also failed to lead “admissible, credible and relevant evidence”.
It said the NIB rather raised allegations of fraud and forgery against Mr Gyimah and further pointed out that although the allegation of forgery was material, the bank failed to lead evidence to that effect.
Rather, the NIB decided to “surprise” and “ambush” Mr Gyimah by introducing elements of fraud and forgery into the case without proving them.
Describing the plaintiff as an “innocent third party”, the court held that Mr Gyimah was presumed by law to have the authority of the NIB to honour the promissory notes.
On the issue of whether or not  Eland International Ghana Limited was liable to indemnify the NIB against the plaintiff’s claim, the court said no, adding that the NIB’s claim that the transaction was “tainted by fraud” was not tenable and consequently dismissed the NIB’s counter-claims.
It further pointed out that the entire transaction involving the issuance and purchase of the promissory notes was legal under the Banking Act, 2004 (Act 673).
By the court’s judgement, the plaintiff, Eland International Ghana Limited and Mr Gyimah were entitled to claims, but their lawyers, Nene Amegatcher, Mr Kwasi Adu Mante and Mr Kwaku Asirifi, respectively, were advised to file formal claims for costs and damages.
Nene Amegatcher had prayed the court to award GH¢5 million in favour of his client, but the court advised him to put the request in a formal application.

Court of appeal to rule in Woyome's case


 February 20, 2013 (Front page)

THE Court of Appeal will on May 9, 2013, decide whether or not, it was right for the Commercial Court to allow the state to introduce evidence of fraud in the payment of GHC51.2 million to a businessman, Alfred Agbesi Woyome.
Woyome appealed against the Commercial Court’s February 29, 2012, decision to allow the state to introduce evidence of fraud on grounds that, the trial judge erred in law in granting the state the permission, to introduce evidence of fraud almost two years after the state had filed a suit to retrieve moneys paid him.
At the Court of Appeal’s sitting in Accra today, legal representatives of the state and Woyome informed the court that they intended to rely on written submissions with respect to the issue.
Woyome was represented by Alhaji Musah Ahmed while the state was represented by Ms Dorothy Afriyie.
The state on July 20, 2010 filed an application claiming an agreement it reached with Woyome, regarding the payment of GHC51.2 million was a mistake, but according to Woyome, the state “went to sleep until January 16, 2012, when it filed a motion on notice for leave to amend by substitution the amended writ of summons and the accompanying amended statement of claim.”
The Commercial Division of the Fast Track High Court on February 29, 2012 presided over by Ms Justice Barbara Ackah-Yensu, granted permission to the state to introduce allegations of fraud against Woyome and awarded cost of GHC2, 000 against the state Woyome for delaying.
Dissatisfied with the Commercial Court’s decision, Woyome filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal on March 13, 2012 challenging the decision of the Commercial Court to grant the state its request.
According to Woyome, the state could raise the issue of fraud but argued that the state could not raise any other issue or relief of which will re-open matters concluded in the consent judgement, resulting in the payment of the GHC51.2 million to him.
He said it was, therefore, wrong in law for the court to allow the state to re-open issues which had already being tackled in the consent judgement.
In his supporting affidavit, Woyome argued that “in an action charging fraud, it would be a clear impropriety for the plaintiff (state) to re-open its case.”
The Attorney-General (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.
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 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.
 But in his amended statement of defence and counter-claim, Woyome, 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. Woyome, is currently standing trial at the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court on two counts of willfully causing financial loss to the state and defrauding by false pretence.
He has denied any wrongdoing and is currently on a GHC20 million bail.
Hearing of his criminal matter resumes on February 28, 2013.
The state is expected to bring a witness on the next adjourned date after failing to produce a witness on three consecutive occasions.


END.