<<Print>>

Former Attorney-General, Martin Lamisi Amidu has filed a suit opposing an application filed to reverse the cross-examination of businessman Alfred Woyome over GHC51.2 million wrongfully paid him.

He argued in the suit filed at the Supreme Court Friday that the application by counsel of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) financier was baseless and should be thrown out.

Mr Amidu asserted that “The mere allegation that the 3rd Defendant/Applicant [Mr Woyome] is dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the said ruling or that there had been misdirection or a series of them is not a fair, just, or special circumstance warranting an application for the grant of stay of proceeding in this action.”

The much-awaited opportunity for the former Attorney-General to cross-examine the NDC businessman over how he spent the money unjustifiably paid him by government was dimmed when Mr Woyome’s lawyers filed a writ for a stay of an application on Thursday.

Mr Amidu had won an application to cross-examine Mr Woyome after the Attorney-General Marietta Brew-Opong withdrew from the same process claiming the businessman had provided a payment plan to offset the GHC51.2 million.

A day to the showdown at the apex court, Mr Woyome’s lawyers filed a writ praying the Court to reverse the November 16 ruling which granted Mr Amidu the opportunity to cross-examine their client.

A copy of Mr Woyome's suit 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."

Displeased with Mr Woyome’s stay of application, Mr Amidu has filed a countersuit demanding the Court to allow him to quiz the businessman in the interest of the nation.

He said the action of counsels of Mr Woyome was aimed at subverting the order of the Supreme Court in its November 16 ruling.

“The public interest that I represent as the Plaintiff/1st Respondent will suffer greater hardship and inconvenience if the request of the applicant was granted,” he said.