The Judge sitting on the case brought before it by Martin Hamidu to orally examine Mr. Alfred Woyome has expressed frustration as to why the businessman is been dragged through all the courts in the same case.
He said he has sat on all the cases concerning this case at the Supreme Court, and he is tired.
This was before he adjourned the judgment on the case to Tuesday 15th November 2016. The proceedings before the adjournment was full of interesting legal punches advanced by the lawyer for the businessman.
His lawyer Ken Anku and the Deputy Attorney General, representing the Attorney General strongly opposed to the Motion Filed by Martin Amidu to be granted leave to examine the 3rd Defendant (Consul) orally. Ken Anku (Esq) objected and argued that Martin Amidu have no *LOCUS STANDI* in trying to usurp the authority of the Attorney General of the Republic of Ghana, moreso, the judgment of 29th July 2014 given by the Supreme Court ordered specifically the 1st Defendant (Attorney General) to take responsibility in the enforcement of the Court’s judgment and not Martin Amidu as a person.
He said the Plaintiff (Martin Amidu) has no Constitutional right under article 2 to bring his (this instant) application before the Court; and he is also so barred per the provisions in Article 88 of the Constitution. He made the strong point that the power to pursue any civil matter on behalf of the State is vested solely in the Attorney General, and Martin Amid can only exercise that power if a Statute grants the AG the power to delegate that power.
The AG’s Representative prayed the Court to struck out Martin Amidu’s application and not grant him the leave to examine the 3rd Defendant orally because per Article 88 and the State Proceedings Act, Act 555, it is only the AG that is mandated to take and/ or recover State funds and protect Public Property.
He said the Constitution does not grant any power or right to Martin Amidu to come under Order 46. The Deputy Attorney General took great exception to some allegations made by Martin Amidu which he term as “scandalous, frivolous and unsubstantiated”.
He particularly prayed the Court to expunge Paragraph 8 to 21 of Martin’s Affidavit in support of his motion, particularly all allegations levelled against the AG. He was extremely unhappy with allegations which seek to portray that the AG took no steps to enforce the judgment or to recover funds as ordered by the Court. He also pointed to paragraph 13 of the affidavit, which he questioned verily.
CW Reporter
