https://www.myjoyonline.com/woyome-amidu-showdown-in-limbo/-------https://www.myjoyonline.com/woyome-amidu-showdown-in-limbo/
National

Woyome, Amidu showdown in limbo

The much awaited Supreme Court encounter between business man Alfred Woyome and his biggest adversary Martin Amidu scheduled for Thursday appears to have been botched, at least for the time being.

Lawyers of the business man have filed a writ at the highest court seeking a review of an earlier decision that would have allowed the citizen vigilante to cross examine Woyome over a controversial ¢51 million judgment debt paid him [Woyome] in 2010.

The writ has pitched both the Attorney General and Minister of Justice and Martin Amidu, in one corner as defendants in the case.

Martin Amidu secured a ruling on November 16, 2016 which gave him the opportunity to question Woyome on issues relating to the controversial ¢51 million given to Woyome and how the state can retrieve the money paid to him

The judge, Justice Anin Yeboah gave Amidu the opportunity to orally cross-examine the business man after the Attorney General who had initially applied for same surprisingly made a u-turn.

A November 24, 2016 date was set for that encounter but that may not happen following a writ brought by Woyome's lawyers, at the last hour, questioning the propriety of Justice Anin Yeboah's ruling.

The writ a copy of which was intercepted by Joy News read: "TAKE NOTICE that counsel for and on behalf of the applicant herein will move this honorable court praying for an order for the reversal of the ruling dated 16th November 2016 of His Lordship Anin Yeboah JSC sitting as a single justice in the afore-mentioned case."

A panel of judges may just be constituted on Thursday to take a second look at the earlier ruling.

Fight with blood

Alfred Woyome swore to avert the cross examination which he said was not only a travesty of justice but a calculated political attempt to embarrass him and governing party with few days to go for an election.

He accused his biggest adversary of vendetta and allowing himself to be used by an unseen forces for political gain.

Criticizing the Justice Anin Yeboah ruling, Alfred Woyome said he had agreed with the Attorney General, a new payment plan that would have seen him pay back a ¢51 million judgement he wrongfully received from the state.

In July 2014, the Supreme Court gave a judgment on a suit filed by Martin Amidu in which it ordered Woyome to pay back the money he recieved.

Two years down the line Woyome had failed to refund the money. The Attorney General in a last gasp attempt to retrieve the money requested for an oral examination to find out where the assets of Woyome were, how the ¢51 million was expended but even that had to be truncated.

Woyome paid some 4 million cedis, hoping he would be allowed to pay same over a period of not more than four years until the entire debt is paid back.

Martin Amidu was unimpressed with the snail's pace attempt to retrieve the money and decided to file a motion to lead the oral examination which was granted.

How the debt came about 

Woyome sued the state in 2009 for what he claimed to be a wrongful termination of contract by the erstwhile Kufuor administration.

The contract, Woyome averred, was for him to raise money for the construction of stadia for the CAN 2008 tournament which was held in Ghana.

He secured a default judgment in 2010 after the then Attorney General Betty Mould Iddrisu failed to prosecute the case.

Even when the court had asked that only the first tranche of 17 million cedis be paid to the business man until after the case had been concluded, officials of government went ahead to pay all three tranches.

A 2010 audit report made adverse findings about officials of government and the payment made to Woyome.

The country has since been left divided on the matter. 

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
Tags:  


DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.