Amidu clashes with Deputy A-G over retrieval of €47.7 million Waterville Holdings judgement debt

There was drama in the Supreme Court Wednesday, when the Special Prosecutor, Mr Martin Amidu lost his cool.

Mr Amidu accused a Deputy Attorney-General (A-G), Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame of disrespecting him and inferring that he was a liar.

“If you don’t respect, don’t come to me for cooperation. You are younger than my son and a junior at the Bar,” the Special Prosecutor fumed.

The Deputy A-G had taken exception to what he described as the Special Prosecutor’s attempt to paint the A-G as not working to retrieve the €47.7 million judgement debt that the government illegally paid to Waterville Holdings.

According to the Deputy A-G, there was no evidence that the A-G had refused to cooperate with Mr Amidu to enforce the order of the Supreme Court for the money to be retrieved.

He rather accused the Special Prosecutor of not cooperating with the A-G and leaking information to the media.

That did not go down well with the Special Prosecutor, who accused the Deputy A-G of disrespecting him and calling him a liar.

Read also

Waterville judgement debt case: Amidu provides evidence to AG

Amidu sues AG for not retrieving €47m judgment debt illegally paid Waterville

Martin Amidu: 11 types of corruption offences the Special Prosecutor can investigate

Public officials make work tough - Martin Amidu threatens action against AG

Amidu’s case dismissed.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has dismissed Mr Amidu’s application urging the court to compel the A-G to enforce the judgement for the money to be retrieved from Waterville.

According to a five-member panel of the court, Mr Amidu’s application had no basis in rules of law or procedure.

“The application is incompetent and hereby dismissed,” the court held.

Background

On June 14, 2013, the Supreme Court ordered Waterville Holdings to refund the €47.36 million the state paid it because the contract between it and the state in 2006 for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008 was not approved by Parliament and was, therefore, unconstitutional and invalid.

The case which culminated in the apex court’s judgment was initiated by Mr Amidu, in his capacity as a private citizen.

Mr Amidu also initiated a similar case which led to a similar decision by the court on July 29, 2014 for the businessman, Alfred Agbesi Woyome, to refund the GH¢51.2 million that was paid to him by the state in relation to the same contract.

Mr Woyome got the GH¢51.2 million as the financial engineer behind the Waterville deal.

On the new case, Mr Amidu claimed the A-G had gone to sleep and was not making concrete efforts to enforce the judgment which had ordered Waterville to refund the money.

He was, therefore, seeking an order from the court to compel the A-G to enforce the judgment.

The Supreme Court, however, dismissed his application as incompetent.