Woyome fights to stop oral examination by state lawyers
A businessman, Mr Alfred Agbesi Woyome, has initiated a series of actions seeking to halt his scheduled oral examination by state lawyers at the Supreme Court in relation to his GH¢51.2 million indebtedness to the state.
Advertisement
First, he has filed a review application at the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the court to place an embargo on his shares in 11 companies and also for him to be orally examined by the Attorney-General (A-G) as to how he intends to repay the GH¢51.2 million.
The two orders were given by the court, presided over by a single judge, Mr Justice A.A. Benin, following an application by the A-G.
Per the court’s orders, Mr Woyome was expected to be orally examined by the A-G yesterday and also argue why the embargo should not be permanent.
That, however, could not happen following another application by the businessman which is seeking the suspension of the process pending the determination of the review application.
Woyome’s case
The application for stay of proceedings was moved by the businessman’s legal team at the Supreme Court yesterday.
The lawyer for Mr Woyome, Mr Ken Anku, impressed on the court to suspend the oral examination pending the determination of the review application, which would be heard by the court on July 18, 2017.
According to him, his client was dissatisfied with the orders given by the court for him to be orally examined and also the embargo on his shares and as such it would be in the interest of justice if those actions were suspended until the court determined the review application.
The review application, he said, was in tandem with Article 134 of the 1992 Constitution, which gives a single justice of the Supreme Court the power to make decisions on matters which are not pending before the court.
Article 134 (b), however, states that in civil matters, “any order, direction or decision’’ given by a single justice “may be varied, discharged or reversed by the Supreme Court constituted by three justices of the Supreme Court’’.
A-G’s opposition
Mr Anku’s submission was opposed by the Deputy A-G, Mr Godfred Dame, who described the application for stay of proceedings as “incompetent and unmeritorious’’.
Making his case, Mr Dame argued that the application had failed to meet all the requirements essential for a stay of proceedings.
Mr Woyome, he said, had failed to indicate any hardship and irreplaceable damage that he would suffer as a result of the oral examination.
He further argued that the application was a ploy by the businessman to evade the oral examination and also the payment of the GH¢51.2 million as ordered by the Supreme Court in 2014.
“His time for excuses are over; the proceedings must continue,’’ Mr Dame said.
The court adjourned the case to July 4 to give a ruling on the application for stay of proceedings.
#Woyome
Writer’s email: emma.hawkson@graphic.com.gh