Former chief of staff, Kwadwo Okyere Mpiani says he is not surprised Spanish firm Isofoton SA has been ordered by the Supreme Court to refund about $400,000 to the state.According Kwadwo Mpiani the judgement confirms his earlier position that the Spanish firm had no contract with the government of Ghana to warrant any payment to it.The Supreme Court on Friday ordered Isofoton to refund some $325,472 illegally paid them by the state in a case brought against the company by former Attorney-General Martin Amidu.Isofoton were seeking $1.3 million judgement debt over claims their contract was illegally terminated by the erstwhile Kufuor government after being contracted to supply Solar powered pump for irrigation.Speaking on Asempa Fm’s current affairs Talkshow Kukurantumi on Saturday, Kwadwo Mpiani insisted that he never issued or cancelled any contract involving Isofoton.He added that if the current government had consulted the erstwhile administration, the said illegal payment to the firm would not have been made.“I am not surprised that the court says the company should refund the money to the state. I know the state had no contract with them so [they] don’t deserve any payment. They went to court under our government but failed and sneaked it under the Atta Mills’ government before getting the money. If the Mills’ government was vigilant and consulted us, the illegal money wouldn’t have been paid” he bellowed.Mr. Mpiani rejected claims that the debt controversy emanated from him because he cancelled the contract signed with Isofoton.He noted that “no individual can cancel a contract of the government”. In government no individual can cancel a contract the government had signed. Any individual who does that will be sacked and for that matter I would have been sacked if I cancelled that of Isofoton”.He however challenged the Spanish firm to prove to the whole world that their contract was cancelled and clearly deserve the said money paid them.“If they had contract and I cancelled it, why didn’t the nine Justices at the Supreme Court identified? If there was a contract, the Justices would have exposed it so where lies the claim?