[ 2016-02-11 ]

Supreme Court throws out suit against Woyome
The Supreme Court has thrown out a suit filed by
one Abdulai Yusif Fanash Muhammed with which he
prayed the highest court of the land to reverse
its own ruling which ordered businessman Alfred
Woyome to refund to the state GHS51.2 million paid
him a few years ago as judgment debt, after an
alleged contract he claimed he had with the State
was illegally terminated.

The Court described the suit as “frivolous”
compelling the applicant to withdraw the case.

Mr Woyome was paid the GHS51.2 million after he
sued the state in connection with the breach of
the alleged contract to build four stadia ahead of
the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations in Ghana. In
connection with the termination of the same
alleged contract, foreign construction firm,
Waterville Holdings BVI, was also paid €25
million.

In the Waterville case, the Supreme Court, on June
14, 2013, declared as null and void, and of no
operative effect, the contract between the firm
and the Government of Ghana titled: “Contract
for the Rehabilitation (Design, Construction,
Fixtures, Fittings and Equipment) of a 40,000
Seating Capacity Baba Yara Sports Stadium in
Kumasi, Ghana” entered into between the Republic
of Ghana and Waterville Holdings Limited (BVI), of
P.O. Box 3444, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin
Islands on April 26, 2006.

The ruling was premised on the basis that the
alleged contract, which was the ground for the
payment of the judgment debt to Waterville,
following its alleged illegal termination,
contravened Article 181 (5) of the 1992
Constitution, which required such contracts to go
to Parliament for approval. The same court ruled
that Mr Woyome did not merit the GHS51.2 million
based on similar grounds.

Mr Woyome promised to refund the money by the end
of 2015. In March last year, his lead counsel,
Sarfo Boabeng, told the nine-member Supreme Court
panel that heard the AG’s application for the
retrieval of the money that his client had already
resolved to make the payment at the end of 2015.

Mr Woyome’s accounts and assets were frozen
about three years ago after he was arrested and
charged for causing financial loss to the State,
as well as defrauding by false pretence, with
regards to the payment made to him between 2009
and 2010 under Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu and Mr Ebo
Barton-Odro, as Attorney General and Deputy,
respectively.

However, he was acquitted and discharged by a High
Court on two counts of defrauding by false
pretence and causing financial loss to the state.

According to the presiding judge, John Ajet-Nasam
– who is one of 34 judges being investigated by
the Chief Justice for corruption and who was
recently removed from the judiciary on the orders
of President John Mahama after investigations
regarding his bribery conduct found him to have
sullied his office – the prosecutors failed to
prove Mr. Woyome fraudulently obtained the GHS51.2
million.

Justice Ajet-Nasam also indicted the prosecution
for failing to call Mrs Mould-Iddrisu, Mr Rex
Magnus Danquah, Mr Barton-Odro, Mr Paul Asimenu,
Mr Samuel Nerquaye-Tetteh and others – who had
all given written opinions that Mr Woyome was
entitled to the money – as witnesses.

Subsequently, a civil suit on the same case by Mr
Amidu resulted in the apex court ruling that Mr
Woyome, as well as Waterville, did not merit the
payment for the work they allegedly did for the
State ahead of Ghana’s hosting of CAN 2008,
since he had no parliamentary approval for the
contract that covered that endeavour.

Anti-corruption crusader Mr Martin Amidu recently
filed a suit at the Supreme Court praying the
highest court of the land to throw out Fanash
Muhammed’s suit, with which he wanted the
earlier ruling overturned.

The Hohoe resident sued Mr Amidu, the Attorney
General, and Mr Woyome for a declaration that
“the financial engineering claims by Alfred
Agbesi Woyome arising out of the tender bid by
Vamed Engineering GmbH/Waterville Holdings during
the procurement process from June 2005 until its
wrongful abrogation in August 2005, is not an
international business transaction within the
meaning of Article 181 of the Constitution,
1992,” for which reason parliamentary
endorsement would have been necessary.

President John Mahama told journalists at the
Flagstaff House on January 12 that Abdulai
Muhammed’s action frustrated processes by the AG
to retrieve the money from Mr Woyome.

The latest ruling by the Supreme Court paves the
way for the Attorney General and Minister of
Justice start processes towards confiscating Mr
Woyome’s assets and auctioning them off to
defray the cost.

Source - classfmonline

... go Back