The Supreme Court yesterday stayed the oral examination of businessman, Mr Alfred Agbesi Woyome, by the anti-corruption crusader, Mr Martin Amidu.
The stay was to enable Mr Woyome’s lawyer, Mr Ken Anku, to move the substantive motion praying the Supreme Court to reverse a November 16, 2016 order directing Mr Woyome to avail himself for oral examination by Mr Amidu.
Granting the application for stay of proceedings, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah said his decision was in the interest of justice.
He also explained that the date for the hearing of the substantive application was a few days away and for that reason it would only be fair for the court to stay proceedings, since the outcome of the substantive matter could affect the issue before him.
The hearing of the substantive matter will be heard on December 6, 2016.
Subsequently, the court fixed December 15, 2016 as the date for the oral examination of Mr Woyome on his assets to defray a GH¢51.2 million debt owed to the government.
Arguments
Prior to Mr Anku moving the motion on notice for stay of proceedings, Mr Justice Yeboah asked Mr Anku why he had not sought leave of the court to file a supplementary affidavit.
The court directed Mr Anku to state the rule which gave him (Mr Anku) the authority to file a supplementary affidavit without seeking leave of the court.
Feeling uncomfortable with the court’s queries, Mr Anku sought to suggest that Mr Justice Yeboah appeared to have a “problem” with his client.
The presiding judge did not take kindly to Mr Anku’s comment, thereby compelling Mr Anku to withdraw and apologise.
Mr Amidu also stated that the supplementary affidavit had been served on him on short notice but indicated that he was prepared to co-operate for the speedy disposal of the case.
The motion
Moving the motion for stay of proceedings, Mr Anku said his client had the right to exercise his constitutional right, pursuant to Article 134 (b) of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 134 states that “a single judge may exercise the power vested in the Supreme Court not involving the decision of the cause or matter before the Supreme Court, except that ..... (b) in civil matters, any order, direction or decision made or given under this article may be varied, discharged or reversed by the Supreme Court constituted by three justices of the Supreme Court”.
He said injustice would be occasioned if the court did not grant his client’s request, adding: “We need to test all the grey areas to make an impact on our law to ensure justice, equity, fairness and common sense as embodied in the 1992 Constitution.”
Mr Amidu opposes
Opposing Mr Anku’s application, Mr Amidu said Mr Woyome was not entitled to ask for stay of proceedings because he had no respect for the Constitution since he had failed to obey the court’s July 29, 2014 order to pay the GH¢51.2 million which was unconstitutionally paid to him.
Mr Amidu said he would suffer hardship if the court process was further delayed.
He said Ghanaians needed to know if Mr Woyome was in a position to pay the GH¢51.2 million, adding that Mr Woyome would lose nothing if he told the whole world about his ability to pay.
Mr Amidu told the court that Mr Woyome’s hands were dirty and for that reason Ghanaians had the right to know so that they could decide on the next government in the upcoming presidential and parliamentary election.
The court eventually granted Mr Woyome’s request and, accordingly, adjourned the case to December 15, 2016.
Background
Mr Woyome is seeking to reverse a Supreme Court order directed at him to avail himself for oral examination by Mr Amidu.
The motion on notice praying the Supreme Court to reverse its decision directing Mr Woyome to submit himself to oral examination by Mr Amidu was filed on November 24, 2016.
The applicant is arguing that the order granting Mr Amidu leave to examine Mr Woyome and execute the judgement sins against articles 2, 88, 130 and 134 of the1992 Constitution and same ought to be reversed.
The decision
The Supreme Court, on November 16, 2016, granted permission to Mr Amidu to orally examine Mr Woyome over his assets.
The court’s directive was aimed at eventually retrieving a GH¢51.2 million judgement debt paid to him.
<<Print>>