A resident of the Hohoe Zongo in the Volta Region is challenging the decision of the Supreme Court asking a businessman to return 51.2 million cedis to the state.

Abdulai Yusif Fanash Muhammed is arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case involving Alfred Agbesi Woyome and to make the orders it made.

He wants a "Declaration that the financial engineering claims by Alfred Agbesi Woyome arising out of the tender bid by Vamed Engineering GmbH/Waterville Holdings during the procurement process from June 2005 until its wrongful abrogation in August 2005 is not an international business transaction within the meaning of Article 181 of the Constitution, 1992."

Woyome had promised to pay the money which the state argues he fraudulently obtained through a judgment debt by the end of last year.

But a week to the self-imposed deadline, a citizen, believed to be sponsored by Woyome himself, went to the Supreme Court arguing the court was wrong.

He asked for a declaration that "Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to pronounce on the financial engineering claims between a citizen of Ghana and the government of Ghana which does not fall within the ambit or purview of Article 181."

Mr. Woyome, a self-confessed financier of the governing National Democracy Congress (NDC) obtained a 51.2 cedis judgment debt founded on a settlement agreement he reached with then Attorney-General, Betty Mould Iddrisu.

He claimed he was entitled to the money arising from financial engineering services he offered the government in 2005 onwards in respect of contracts for the rehabilitation of the Baba Yara and Accra Sports Stadium.

After obtaining the default judgment, the state brought criminal charges against him, accusing him of defrauding by false pretences and causing financial loss to the state.

Whilst that case was being heard at the High Court, former Attorney-General Martin Amidu went to the Supreme Court, arguing the contracts on the basis of which Woyome made the claims against the state were international business transactions that were not laid before Parliament for approval as required by Article 181 of the Constitution.

He said to that extent, the contracts contravened the constitution an therefore, "null, void, and without operative effect."

The Supreme Court in a June 14, 2013 ruling, agreed with Mr Amidu that the cotracts with Waterville Holdings were international business transactions that ought to have been laid before parliament for approval.

To the extent that this was not done, the Court held, the contracts were null and void and of no effect.

The Court however said it couldn't grant the reliefs being sought by Mr. Amidu in relation to Woyome because there was a case against him at the High Court.

A relentless Amidu went back to the court for review and obtained a favourable judgment on July 29, 2014, which asked Woyome to return the money to the state.

The Hohoe native says he is bringing "this action as a citizen of Ghana to challenge the decision of the review bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Martin Amidu v The Attorney-General, Waterville Holdings, and Alfred Agbesi Woyome...and its consequential orders as being void ab initio for excess of jurisdiction in violation of the powers of the Supreme Court as provided for in the Constitution."