Former Attorney General, Martin Amidu has filed an affidavit opposing an application filed by lawyers of Alfred Agbesi Woyome in conjunction with a private legal practitioner, David Ametefe seeking to reverse the Supreme Court's ruling to allow Mr Amidu orally examine Mr Woyome to ascertain how he spent the GHC 51.2 million he wrongfully received as judgement debt.
The Supreme Court on November 16, granted Mr Amidu's motion to orally examine Mr Woyome setting November 24 for the showdown.
But in a last-minute twist, Mr Woyome's lawyers and Mr Ametefe on November 23, filed the application for a stay of proceedings on the oral examination and also sought to reverse the ruling.
Mr Amidu's latest affidavit is opposing Mr Woyome's move saying the antics were all part of a move to hand Mr Woyome an unconstitutional contract similar to the one under dispute so he could mobilise funds to pay the debt.
According to him, "Government of Ghana’s interest is not in enforcing the order of the Supreme Court. Instead, the incumbent Government represented by the Attorney General is merely giving the appearance of enforcing the order of the Court while simultaneously entering into a confidentiality agreement with Alfred Agbesi Woyome as Executive Chairman, a director, and sole shareholder of Anator Holding. This discreet agreement aims to facilitate Woyome’s ability to refund the monies ordered by this Court. Such actions by the incumbent Government negate the letter and spirit of Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution and the enforcement jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
"Moreover, I maintain that under Article 2 of the 1992, when the Attorney General is being sued for unconstitutional conduct, and a declaration of unconstitutionality is made against the Attorney General, it will be a negation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution to say that the public interest Plaintiff who has prosecuted the action has no capacity to ensure proper and effective execution of the order, even when the Attorney General’s actions are not of substance for purposes of enforcing the decisions and order of the Supreme Court", the affidavit partly read.
Read the full affidavit here