It is amazing how NDC Government officials and communicators get so jittery when Alfred Agbesi WOYOME issue is raised by the opposition party, NPP. Some still have the audacity to call WOYOME a criminal. We claim we are so educated yet so nignorant to the extent that, our only source of information is what is spewed in the media by some ignoramus or deliberate criminals.
Now to the point. I agree with all the rulings of the High Court, The Court of Appeal on the criminal cases. I also agree on one aspect of he Supreme Court ruling which stated that the entire transaction was UNCONSTITUTIONAL but disagree on the other which asked WOYOME to pay back the money.
IWhy do I disagree with the Supreme Court on the other?
Document stated below refered.
In the Superior Court of Judicature in the Court of Appeal, Accra-Accra.
JUDGEMENT
1. This judgement cleared and discharged Alfred AGBESI WOYOME of causing financial loss, ( Sec. 179. Criminal offences Act) defrauding by false pretence, criminal offence through wilful, malicious, or fraudulent action or ommission. (Sec. 132, 133 (1) Criminal Offences Act ). Refer to pages 5-7 of the Judgement.
2. On page 38 of the judgement (after examining Osafo Marfo, a Finance Minister as at the time the contract was entered into, among others, Justice OFOE stated, “Having so found I am of the view that fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation cannot be sustained on this allegation.”
3. The contentious aspect of whether respondent (WOYOME) had any contract with Government of Ghana to conduct any financial engineering on its behalf of which he should make claims on government?
This is what Justice OFOE again concluded. ” on reading of the records of proceedings and the submissions of both parties to this criminal trial, the conclusion that one comes to is that the respondent’s (WOYOME) claim is based on the tendering process which Waterville/M Powapak (WOYOME’s company) won but was terminated in August 2005. Page 41 and on page 45 he ruled after going through the evidences that, “I am comfortable with a finding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on this charge of defrauding by false pretences.”
WAS BETTY MOULD FINANCIALLY INFLUENCED BY WOYOME AS THE MEDIA AND SOME NPP MEMBERS ARE PORTRAYING?
On page 48 of the judgment, Justice OFOE made a profound statement.
“The Honourable woman was talking law here. How could anybody say she was influenced by the respondent, a lay person talking this law? There wasn’t therefore any evidence that their absence from the court disabled the court from coming to its conclusion”
DOES WOYOME DESERVE THE GHC 51 MILLION?
The lead Justice OFOE agreed in the affirmative, And ” from the foregoing opinion I will dismiss the appeal as without merit.” Page 50 refered.
Justice KORBIEH on page 58 of the Judgement posited, “it is my considered opinion that the respondent has both a factual and a legal basis for making his claim and it was therefore made in good faith.” He also dismissed the case
I love Justice MENSAH’s comment on pages 78-79. “It is very difficult to understand how the Respondent can be indicted for an offence which was blessed by the panoply of government machinery. Or is it a case of bolting the stable after the horses have escaped?” Because as the time the AG was trying to prosecute WOYOME, “the judgment of the Commercial Court was subsisting, just as it is now.”
This was a result of NDC Government buckling under NPP’s allegation of corruption and criminality. The prosecution was to save a political face which attempted to defy the strength of the law. The law won. WOYOME is not a criminal.
BUT THE SUPREME COURT SAYS HE CHOP THE MONEY?
The SUPREME COURT did not rule on criminality of the case. Indeed, the court ruled that the entire transaction was UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The SUPREME COURT focused on whether the Transaction followed constitutional provision of Article 181 which says:
LOANS
18l. (I) Parliament may, by a resolution supported by the votes of a majority of all the members of Parliament, authorise the Government to enter into an agreement for the granting of a loan out of any public fund or public account. (b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund or other public . . fund of moneys derived from loans raised on institutions shall be laid before Parliament and shall not come mto operation unless
(2) An agreement entered into under clùuse (I) oft.1us article outside Ghana. it is approved by a resolution of Parliament.
(3) No loan shall be raised by the Governmeút on behalf of Itself or any other public institution or authority otherwise than by or under the authority of an Act of Parliament.
So the question is If parliamentary approval was not obtained by the NPP Government [for those transactions in respect of which arbitral awards have been issued against Ghana], then those who failed to do so broke the law. In any well-governed country, it is these governments officials, not the contractors, who will bear the cost of breaking the law. This is straightforward, simple and logical. But in Ghana, the politicians who offended the law shouts louder with accussation of corruption. This perpetuates a system of perverse incentives. This dangerous ruling is very unfair to the business community
Was it that the NDC GOVERNMENT was been inept in communicating the facts to the public?