Amidu Floors Woyome...As S C Orders Him To Refund GhȻ51.2m

The Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously ruled that Alfred Agbesi Woyome had no valid contract and further directed that the businessman refunds the $51.2 million judgement debt paid him between 2009-2010 to the state. According to Graphic Court Correspondent, Mabel Aku Baneseh, the eleven-member panel ruled that the National Democratic Congress financier got the money out of an invalid and unconstitutional contract. The eleven-member panel included Julius Ansah, Sophia Adinyira, Rose Owusu, Jones Dotse and Anin Yeboah. The others were Paul Baffoe Bonnie, N. S. Gbadegbe, Vida Akoto Bamfo, A. A. Bennin and J.B. Akamba. It was presided over by the Chief Justice, Mrs Georgina Theodora Wood. In its ruling, the court said the contracts upon which he made and received the claim was 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 ruling follows a JUDICIAL REVIEW brought before the court by former Attorney General Martin Amidu against Alfred Agbesi Woyome and the country representative of Isofoton S. A, Anane Agyei Forson; who insisted that Woyome, like Waterville and Isofoton, had no valid contract to be paid any amount by the state in judgement debt. Mr. Amidu was seeking various reliefs in the two separate cases. Although the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in his favour in June 2013, Martin Amidu applied for Judicial Review in what he termed a miscarriage of justice. In that trial, Martin Amidu, who represented himself in court, argued that the Attorney General, who was one of the respondents in the case, facilitated Waterville Holdings� �unconstitutional� acts in the construction of stadia for the CAN 2008. The Attorney General, represented by Chief State Attorneys Dorothy Afriyie Ansah and Stella Badu told the court Martin Amidu was �entitled to his reliefs�. Mr. Sarfo Buabeng, counsel for Alfred Woyome filed an affidavit in opposition and filed a statement of claim to the court. He said the grounds for the review sought by the former AG are flawed. More soon...