<<Print>>

ALFRED AGBESI Woyome, the self-styled financier of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), has filed an amendment to his statement of defence to challenge claims made by the Attorney-General in its bid to reclaim an amount of GH�51,283,480.59 paid to him as judgment debt. In his writ filed on June 14, 2012, Woyome is praying for additional payment of GH�9,405,481.20 as interest on the sum of GH�51,283,480.59 on reducing balance between July 9, 2010 and October 11, 2011. �Interest on the said GH�9,405,481.20 will be paid at the prevailing commercial bank rate from October 11, 2011 up to and inclusive of date of final payment,� it said. The A-G, in its amended statement of case, had described as fraudulent, the money paid to Alfred Agbesi Woyome, revealing that the NDC bankroller deliberately defrauded the state with his claim, knowing fully well that he had no contract with the state. However, Woyome, in his June 14, 2012 writ, argued that there was a contract between him and government to render financial engineering services for the renovation of three stadia in Accra and Kumasi for the hosting of 2008 Africa Cup of Nations tournament. The NDC financier had earlier stated in several radio interviews that he had no contract with the state even though the cheques issued for the payments were in his personal name. Explaining how the contract came about, Woyome indicated that there was a contract for the rehabilitation of the stadia which went for tender. He said two committees, namely Finance Committee and Technical Committee, were to evaluate the bid and eventually, the Financial Committee shortlisted Vamed /M-Power Pak, referred to as Waterville and EMSAS/EPIFERM, for the contract. According to him, the procurement of secured funding was a condition for the award of the contract. He therefore played the part of providing financial services for the contract to be executed. �The procurement process for the award of the contract to rehabilitate the stadia was duly completed by the Government as a result of which the Central Tender Review Board, by a letter dated August 2005, gave concurrent approval for the award of the contract to Messrs Vamed Engineering Limited�. Woyome said he paid for the services of a British Lawyer, Collin Russels, who made representations to the Government on behalf of Waterville. �The memorandum of understanding reached between the Government and Waterville was entirely without prejudice to the right of Woyome with regard to the services rendered through procurement of financial engineering�. Woyome said prior to the execution of the contract between Government and Waterville dated April 26, 2005, he had rendered financial engineering service to the Government which enabled Vamed/Waterville to obtain the concurrent approval on August 5, 2005. Mr. Woyome explained that Waterville had previously arranged the bridge finance from Merchant Bank Ghana Limited to enable work to commence on time while he fulfilled conditions for funds he was arranging from Bank Austria. He said following the refusal of Government to satisfy the conditions precedent within the stipulated time for the financial contract to be signed between Government and Bank Austria, the Government adopted the bridge finance arranged by Waterville to execute the contract dated April 26, 2006. Government reportedly dealt with Woyome, Vamed and later Waterville and its accredited agents as assignees of the rights of Vamed through Woyome. Mr. Woyome stated that the Local Organising Committee (LOC) of CAN 2008 worked with him and secured the services of PMP Legacy Company from the United Kingdom to prepare a feasibility study and business plan as a basis for the financial structure for the funding of the CAN 2008 projects. The fees for the feasibility study and the business plan, he said, were paid by him on behalf of the LOC and Government. According to him, the Attorney-General, by a letter dated April 29, 2010, concluded that Woyome had a binding contract with the Government. For Woyome, the judgment delivered by the court on May 24, 2010 was not obtained by any false representation on his part, but because the state failed to deliver its statement of defence. Also, he said the judgment was not entered in his favour because of the petition he presented to Government in 2009.