Woyome In Trouble; Dealt Another Legal Blow By "Citizen Vigilante"...

Alfred Agbesi Woyome has been dealt another legal blow by perhaps his arch-foe, Martin Amidu, after the Supreme Court ordered him (Woyome) to refund to the state, the Ghc 51.2 million he illegally received. In all, the former Attorney-General has knocked down Mr Woyome thrice; the WATERVILLE ruling on June 14, 2013, where Waterville was expected to refund 25 million euros it received from the government following the court�s unanimous ruling that the said contract it entered into with the government for stadia construction for the CAN 2008 was unconstitutional; the ISOFOTON Ruling on June 21, 2013, where the court ordered Isofoton S.A. to refund the cedi equivalent of $325,472 it received from the government in March, 2011 and finally Tuesday's JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION ruling. The Supreme Court on Tuesday, ruled that the contracts upon which he made and received the claim was in contravention to Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which requires such contracts to be laid before and approved by Parliament. 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. The ruling was based on a reviewed application filed by a former Attorney General, Mr Martin Amidu. Mr. Amidu first went to court indicting government for using illegal means to dole out monies to Mr. Woyome. He followed his plea up by asking the court to reclaim the amount given to Mr. Woyome, Waterville and Isofoton. Mr. Amidu sought various reliefs in the two separate cases. The CITIZEN VIGILANTE, as the former A-G was affectionately called, represented himself in court and 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. Mr. Amidu after prevailing on the Supreme Court wanted aspects of its decision, which declined to order the businessman, Mr. Alfred Woyome, to refund GHc51.2 million he received from the government in the form of judgment debt. The Supreme Court, on June 14, 2013, directed Waterville Holdings to refund all monies paid to it by the Ghana government on the premise that it had no valid and constitutional contractual agreement with the government. Waterville was expected to refund 25 million euros it received from the government following the court�s unanimous ruling that the said contract it entered into with the government for stadia construction for the CAN 2008 was unconstitutional because it had contravened Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution, which required such contracts to go to Parliament for approval. In the other judgment, the court, on June 21, 2013, ordered Isofoton S.A. to refund the cedi equivalent of $325,472 it received from the government in March, 2011. The court also directed the company to refund all monies it had so far received from the government on the grounds that the agreements resulting in the payments were unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void The two suits were filed by Mr. Amidu, who had argued that both payments were illegal, null and void and of no legal effect. He had prayed the court to order Mr. Woyome to refund monies he had received as a result of the void contract the government had entered into with Waterville. The court declined jurisdiction over the issue, with the reason that the Attorney-General was currently pursuing the matter at the Commercial Court to retrieve the GHc51.2 million paid to Mr. Woyome. With respect to the suit against Isofoton S. A., Mr. Amidu had joined the local agent of Isofoton, Mr. Anane Agyei-Forson, and prayed the court to jointly order him to refund all monies the company had received, but the court held a different view and exonerated Mr. Agyei-Forson. The court found no wrongdoing on the part of Agyei-Forson on the grounds that Mr. Amidu had failed to show a cause of action against him. The court also refused to hold the Attorney-General liable, but Mr. Amidu said the exclusion of Mr. Woyome, Mr. Agyei-Forson and the Attorney-General could amount to a miscarriage of justice. Osafo Buabeng, counsel for Woyome, filed an affidavit in opposition on the grounds that the review sought by the former AG was flawed. On the Isofoton S. A case, Carl Adongo, counsel for Anane Agyei Forson, prayed the court to strike out the review application. Martin Amidu argued that no action was taken on the reliefs he sought against the Attorney General in the first case he filed. He said per the judgement of June 2013, Isofoton acted unconstitutionally, saying appointing an attorney was unconstitutional in itself. Mr. Adongo, however, argued that the court�s failure to make any decision on the reliefs sought against the Attorney General amounted to making a decision. He said his client could not be said to have acted unconstitutionally because his appointment was made long before the Supreme Court ruling of June 2013. The eleven-member Supreme Court panel, chaired by Chief Justice Georgina Wood, adjourned both cases to 29 July for ruling. Fast forward to 2014. Georgina Wood's eleven-member panel on Monday (July 29) reinforced the earlier ruling and ordered Mr Woyome to refund the Ghc 51.2 million he illegally received.