Amidu fires again; AG is dishonest

Mr Martin Amidu has fired back after he accused the Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Mrs Marietta Brew Appiah-Opong of bias. This time he writes that the AG was dishonest.

In a rebuttal to Mr Amidu’s rejoinder in the matters bordering on the acquittal and discharge of businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome with regards to the Gh₵51.2million judgment debt, Mrs Appiah-Opong explained that she did not selectively file an entry of judgment omitting the declarations in respect of the then Attorney General, Mrs Betty-Mould Iddrisu and the fact that the declaration against Woyome was stated to be with Austro-Invest.

But according to Mr Amidu, himself a former Attorney General and Minister Justice, the failure to attach her [Appiah-Opong] entry of judgment as a rebuttal speaks to her integrity as an Attorney General.

In a second statement within 24hours and in defending his claim that the current AG lacks the integrity to pursue the appeal against businessman Alfred Woyome, Mr Amidu wrote: “I have just read on Graphiconline the denial by the Attorney General, Mrs Brew Appiah-Opong, that she did not selectively file an entry of judgment omitting the declarations in respect of the then Attorney General and the fact that the declaration against Woyome was stated to be with Austro-Invest.”

“Readers will find hereunder for the avoidance of doubt the soft copy of the affidavit I deposed on 27th October 2014 to in support of Woyome’s application he filed on 26th October 2014 to set aside the entry of judgment which will confirm my story on oath.”

He said Woyome’s application which contains serious indictments of the Attorney General can be obtained from him [Woyome] or the Supreme Court.

Alternately the Attorney General may want to confirm her integrity by publishing her entry of judgment and Woyome’s application to set it aside, Mr Amidu wrote.

“I never said anywhere that Austro-Invest could be served with any entry of judgment as she alleges in her reply,” he added

“Honesty is the hallmark of an Attorney General. Ghana is in big trouble with such government appointees who play propaganda with this nation in everything.”

Writer's email: enoch.frimpong@graphic.com.gh

@enochfrimpong on Twitter

Below is a copy of Mr Amidu's affidavit

 RE: AG REPLIES AMIDU – MARTIN AMIDU’S AFFIDAVIT FOR THE PUBLIC: BY MARTIN AMIDU

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE

                                                                                                 SUIT NO. CM J8/100/2014  

BETWEEN:

MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU

PLOT 355 NORTH LEGON RESIDENTIAL AREA         PLAINTIFF

ACCRA

AND

1. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL                                         1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

MINISTERIES

ACCRA

2. WATERVILLE HODINGS (BVI) LIMITED                  2ND DEFENDANT

P. O. BOX 3444

ROAD TOWN

TORTOLA

BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS

3. ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME                                        3RD DEFENDANT/APPLICANT

HOUSE NO. 16B

I, Martin Alamisi Amidu, of Plot No. 355, North Legon Residential Area, make oath and say as follows.

1.      That I am the Plaintiff in the substantive action and the review application pursuant to which the Supreme Court delivered the decision dated 29th July 2014 resulting in the purported Entry of Judgment which is the subject matter of 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application herein.

2.      I am the deponent herein and an interested party to the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application to set aside the Entry of Judgment by the 1st Defendant/Respondent and should have been served with this application as well in the interest of justice.

3.      When the Plaintiff was served with the Entry of Judgment in this case which is exhibited to the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application as “Exhibit AAW1” the Plaintiff called the attention of the office of the 1st Defendant/Respondent to the fact that the purported Entry of Judgment did not truly reflect the ruling of the Supreme Court in the application for review and was intended to curtail the substance of the entire ruling, declarations and order of the Court.

4.      The plaintiff called the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s attention to the fact the manner the 1st Defendant/Respondent excluded all the declarations made by the Supreme Court from the Entry of Judgment creates the unavoidable impression that the 1st Defendant/Respondent is using the process of the entry of judgment to indirectly render nugatory the declarations made by the Supreme Court for the purpose of their enforcement.

5.      The Plaintiff also called the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s attention to the fact that even the order of the Court in respect of which she selectively decided to enter judgment was expressed to include and was not limited to the “said sums amount to Fifty-one million two hundred and eight-three thousand and eighty Ghana cedis fifty-nine pesewas (GHS 51,283,480.59)” as purportedly stated on the Entry of Judgment filed in this Court on 15th August 2014.

6.      The Plaintiff further called the 1st Defendant/Respondent’s attention to the fact that the current and substantive Attorney-General having been the partner in the law firm of Lithur-Brew & Co who were lawyers to Austro Invest Limited before its purported liquidation the entry of judgment creates the unavoidable impression that the substantive holder of the Office of the 1st Defendant/Applicant is acting unconstitutionally in abusing her office in shielding her former client with whom the 3rd Defendant acted jointly from the full extent of the declarations made by the Court in the ruling dated 29th July 2014.

7.      The Plaintiff explained to the 1st Defendant/Respondent when the issue of how the 1st Defendant/Respondent could enter judgment in respect of the declaration against the then Attorney-General that in spite of the fact that this Court granted a declaration against the then Attorney-General the current and substantive Attorney-General was in duty bound by Articles 2 and 88 of the 1992 Constitution to comply with the decision by entering judgment for that declaration as well.

8.      In consequence of the discussions held between the Plaintiff and the office of the 1st Defendant/Respondent the Plaintiff was assured that the Registrar of this Court would be asked to delay service of the Entry of Judgment on the 3rd Defendant/Applicant to enable the issues raised by the Plaintiff to be addressed personally by the 1st Defendant/Respondent on her return from abroad.

9.      The Plaintiff notified the 1st Defendant/Respondent that should the 1st Defendant/Respondent persist in its unconstitutional conduct of refusing to enter judgment for the entire review decision of the Supreme Court the Plaintiff would be compelled to proceed against both the office of the 1st Defendant/Respondent and the person substantively holding that office under Article 2 and 88 of the 1992 Constitution.

10.  The Plaintiff was subsequently informed that the 1st Defendant/Respondent had requested the Registrar of this Court to delay the service of the Entry of Judgment on the 3rd Defendant/Respondent to enable compliance with the judgment and order of this Court in full.

11.  Unbeknown to the Plaintiff the 1st Defendant/Respondent wrote a letter dated 17th September 2014 to the Registrar of this Court to proceed to effect service of the purported entry of judgment: this was discovered by the Plaintiff on 23rd October 2014 when the Plaintiff had notice of the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application to set aside the Entry of Judgment.

12.  I am reliably informed and believe same to be true that as a result of the averments made by the 3rd Defendant/Applicant in his supporting affidavit, particularly paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 thereof the 1st Defendant/Respondent instead of making an answer to the 3rd Defendant/Applicant’s application is persuading the 3rd Defendant/Applicant in their mutual interest to withdraw this application and allow the unconstitutional entry of judgment to stand.

13.   The Plaintiff believes that the 3rd Defendant/Applicant intentionally failed or refused to copy this application to the Plaintiff as an interested party who was served with the Entry of Judgment.

14.  The Plaintiff believes that as the person who commenced the action in this case before the Supreme Court and pursued the application for review in the public interest he is the only person with sufficient standing to depose to this affidavit urging this Court to decide the substantive matter of the legality and constitutionality of the Entry of Judgment purportedly filed by the 1st Defendant/Respondent which is materially in consistent with and in contravention of the judgment of this Court given pursuant to Article 2, 130 and 133 of the 1992 Constitution.

15.  The Plaintiff believes that the Government which was the author of the unconstitutional conduct declared by this Court, the office of the 1st Defendant which the Government controls, and the person of the substantive holder of the office of the 1st Defendant/Respondent who was associated with the unconstitutional conduct declared by this Court while in private practice as a lawyer have exhibited a clear intention in the Entry of Judgment not to enforce the judgment as decided by this Court in the review application.

16.  The Plaintiff believes that substantial justice demands that once this application has been brought to the notice of this Court this Court is duty bound to decide the application on its merits as it  affects the binding nature of this Court’s decision as provided for under Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution.

WHEREFORE I swear to this affidavit in support of the fact that Entry of Judgment herein is inconsistent with the decision of this Court dated 29th July 2014 as a result of which this application should be decided on its merits and not to be allowed to be withdrawn by the 3rd Defendant/Applicant.

                                                                                    ……………………………………

                                                                                                            DEPONENT

Sworn in Accra this ….. day of

October, 2014

BEFORE ME

COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS