Judge was selective in Woyome ruling; our appeal is solid - Ayine

 

 

Deputy Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Dr. Dominic Ayine, has punched holes into the verdict that acquitted and discharged businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome in the Ghc51 million judgment debt scandal.

Justice Ajet-Nassam in a High Court ruling Thursday March 12 freed Mr.Woyome on two counts of defrauding the state by false pretenses and causing financial loss to the state. He said the state had not adduced ample evidence and had done a shoddy job, adding that the accused did not secure the money criminally.

The ruling, which angered the citizenry, also incensed officials at the Ministry of Justice and Attorney-General who have since filed an appeal, with hearing expected to start March 31. Although many have described the decision to appeal as a waste of public resources, the Deputy Attorney-General is convinced the state has a strong case.

Speaking to Kwesi Pratt Junior, the Host of TV3’s Hot Issues on Saturday, the legal luminary in a long analysis suggested that the Judge erred in his ruling. He said the judge was “selective’’ in using the evidence at his disposal to arrive at that decision.

“We have filed an appeal because we disagree vehemently with the High Court. We think that we led sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of Woyome on the two counts of causing financial loss to the state and defrauding by false pretenses.

First of all, the representation that Woyome made that he had engaged in financial engineering and that there was an agreement was a false representation. It was false because prosecution witness number two Hon.Osafo Marfo, then Minister of Education and Sports in his evidence in chief indicated quite clearly that there was no such agreement with the Government of Ghana for him to engage in any financial engineering on behalf of the republic”.

“We also called witnesses from the Ministry of Finance to show that at that point in time, no money flowed into the purse of the government of Ghana as a result of what the accused person allegedly did. And so plainly, on the basis of the evidence, the representation that he had engaged in financial engineering on behalf of Ghana was a false impression. And so it came as a big surprise to us when the Judge said that we had not led evidence to discharge the burden placed on us by the evidence decree”.

Reacting to the failure of the state to call persons who played vital roles in the payment, Dr. Ayeni somewhat conceded that if those officials had given evidence in the matter it may have strengthened the state’s case further. But he was quick to add that the prosecution was cautious because those persons may have ended up aiding the accused person’s case.

“I cannot discount the fact that if they were available to give evidence truthfully, in support of the state it will help the case that we had brought to court. I am not discounting that fact at all. But they have the right under Article 19 of the Constitution not to self-incriminate. At a point in time when we were making decisions about the witnesses to call, we took the view that we didn’t want to put these persons on the stand. The reason being that, both Betty Mould Iddrisu and Ebo Barton-Oduro had publicly made it clear that they supported the case of Woyome. So that meant that if we called them, we then have to treat them as hostile witnesses so the probative value of their evidence from the beginning would have been very low”.

“Then we would have to cross-examine our witnesses instead of leading them in evidence to prove our claim. And if they refuse to talk, the inference that the judge will draw is that the witnesses we brought is supporting the other side, so it would have been much more difficult for us strategically to be able to put forward our case if we had called them”.

The Deputy Attorney General wondered why the Judge would rely solely on the state’s evidence to deliver his verdict and turn around to say their evidence was shoddy.

“As at 20th of April 2014, the state had proven the basic elements of the case that is defrauding by false pretences and willfully causing financial loss to the state. Contrary to conventional judicial practice of judging, the Judge did not even say a word about the defendant’s evidence in that 25 page judgment. In other words, the Judge relied solely on the evidence that we had led up until the 20th of April. So he relied solely on that evidence but that turned out to say our evidence was shoddy”.

“That is utterly shocking because if you call the accused person to open his defense, you have admitted that the prosecution has done a sufficient job to prove the elements of the offense. So to turn around and say the evidence of the prosecution was shoddy, was it based on the same shoddy evidence that you asked the accused to answer? Traditionally, if the evidence is shoddy, you throw it out and sustain the accused person’s submission of no case. But you don’t call upon the accused to answer then subsequently say that the prosecution has done a bad job and so the accused deserves to walk. In fact, the implication of calling the accused person to answer is that, if he does not show through reasonable probability that his story is true, he is going to jail. That is the implication in law; so we were shocked” he stated.

Asked why other state officials who were complicit in the case were not prosecuted alongside Mr. Woyome, the Deputy Attorney-General in a long winding explanation said the discretion of the Attorney-General to sue or not to sue needed to be taken with a lot of circumspection.

He however noted that the decision not to sue those persons had been taken by the former Attorney-General before his current boss; Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong took over. He added that although they took a critical look at that decision, they have still not taken any decision yet on it. He says those individuals may be sued in the future or left off the hook for posterity to judge them.

Dr. Ayeni said despite attempts to discredit government’s decision to appeal, they are confident the High Court ruling will be overturned.

“It’s surprising how even before people read the judgment, based upon journalistic accounts; some respected eminent juries came to the conclusion that our appeal was dead on arrival. They did not read the judgment itself and have not had the benefit of reviewing the evidence as I have done. I and my boss have been intimately involved in this process. We get briefings from the state attorneys when they return from the court; we have the transcripts of the evidence in chief and the cross-examination so on a regular basis we have been able to assess the chances of succeeding even at the High Court itself. In fact, we were fairly confident that we were going to win this case. So I was reprised that people judged our appeal with phrases such as dead on arrival”.

“Let me tell you something, if you read the judgment, it is very clear that the Judge was very selective in the kind of evidence that he used. As I have said, he ignored all the evidence in chief that we led; he used cross-examination statements that had no direct bearing on the justifiability of the claim and came to the conclusion that those statements justified the claim”.

Dr. Ayeni in proving the above statement gave an example of an incident during the trial, where one Orlandi of Waterville, who was called as a witness for the state, said that Woyome’s claim was independent of Waterville’s claim. This assertion according to Dr. Ayeni, was only a repeat of what Orlandi had heard the then Attorney-General Betty Mould Iddrisu make at a stakeholder’s forum.

But according to Dr. Ayeni, the Judge, Ajet-Nassam, wrongfully inferred Orlandi’s aforementioned assertion to mean that Woyome was entitled to the payment.

“So there was so much selectivity in the evidence. And in conventional judicial reasoning, you take the evidence led in chief and the cross-examination evidence and you ask yourself, was this person contradicting himself under-cross examination. So you put the two together and then you draw a conclusion or an inference. And it will be an irresistible inference that you draw if you look at the pieces of evidence put together. It’s like a puzzle; you put the pieces together and you solve the puzzle and that is what judges do. This Judge did not do that; and so for me, we have a very strong chance of overturning the judgment on appeal. But I won’t go into the merits of our appeal because we just filed the notice. And I wouldn’t want to pre-empt the judgment. But I can only say that having looked at the judgment I am confident that our chances are very strong on appeal.”

Lawyer to sue AG over reviewed judicial charges

A private legal practitioner Mathias Kwasi Yakah has threatened to sue the Attorney General over the reviewed court charges.

Mr. Kwasi Yakah is demanding a justification for the upward review of the charges, which he describes as “unnecessary”.

The Judicial Service has increased the court fees by between 50 and 300 hundred percent.

The move follows the recent Parliamentary approval of CI 86 which spells out the various charges approved for the courts under the law.

Speaking to Starr News, the aggrieved lawyer said the new charges will bring additional hardships to clients and subsequently affect justice delivery in the country.

NDC 1 million votes in A/R impossible - Ben Ephson

 

 

Renowned Pollster and Managing Editor of the Daily Dispatch newspaper, Mr. Ben Ephson has indicated that the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC's) target of winning one million votes in the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP’s) stronghold; Ashanti Region, is an over-ambitious and difficult task.

Party executives of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in the Ashanti Region have mapped out a strategy to win as many as a million votes in the region. This will make victory in the 2016 general election a certainty for the NDC, a former Deputy Ashanti Regional Minister, Mr. Samuel Yaw Adusei, has disclosed

According to Mr. Adusei, a thank-you tour initiated by President John Dramani Mahama in the region last year, where he expressed the desire of increasing their fortunes in the region in the next election, ignited their dreams to design the Operation One Million Votes strategy.

Giving statistics to buttress his point, he said in the 2008 election, the NDC succeeded in winning over 400, 000 votes in the Ashanti Region, considered the stronghold of the opposition NPP, and in the 2012 general election, they increased their votes in the region to 612,000 votes.

But addressing electoral fortunes of the ruling NDC in the Ashanti Region on Okay Fm’s "Ade Akye Abia" Morning Show, Ben Ephson related the desire of the NDC in Ashanti Region to a fighter who will not accept defeat despite his knowledge of the consequences.

He said though the ruling party [NDC] almost had 617,000 votes in the Ashanti Region in the 2012 elections, the one million votes will be difficult to attain in the 2016 elections.

He however added he will not be surprised if the NDC gets 800,000 votes in the Ashanti Region in the 2016 elections "but the 1 million votes is a mission impossible"; reiterating that NDC could still lose the 2016 elections if they get the 1 million votes in Ashanti Region and lose the three swing electoral regions [Central, Western and Greater Accra].

“NDC 1 million votes in the Ashanti Region will be very difficult; 1 million and that is they are talking about getting 34 percent….I think that will be very difficult for NDC to get in the 2016 elections. In 2012 election, they had almost 617,000 votes….I won’t be surprised if they get 800,000 votes, but the 1 million votes will be very difficult. If NDC wins their 1 million target votes in Ashanti Region and lose the three swing electoral regions, they will lose the 2016 elections…” he stated.

NDC chases Kofi Boakye; Alhaji Tapsoba to his rescue

• Facebook

A leading member of the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC), Alhaji Alhassan Tapsoba, has condemned what he says is an attempt by some known activist of the party in the Ashanti Region to put impediments in the way of the Regional Police Commander, DCOP Nathan Kofi Boakye, from executing his duties.

Though DCOP Kofi Boakye’s strict adherence to duty and his resolve to apply the rules without fear or favour in fighting crime in the region have attracted several commendations from the public, as well as high authorities, including the President and the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, some activists, allegedly connected to the ruling party have mounted campaign to discredit the Police Boss.

Posters have in recent times flooded some parts of the city, ostensibly calling for the removal of DCOP Kofi Boakye, in the wake of the dismissal of the former Regional Minister, Hon. Samuel Sarpong and his deputy, Joseph Yamin, few weeks ago.

It is not clear how the dismissal of the two personalities were linked to the Police Boss, but the posters, which are also embossed on some vehicles belonging to individuals linked to the NDC, have inscriptions like: “Kofi Boakye Must Also Go”, accompanied by a portrait of the President, His Excellency John Dramani Mahama.

But the development has been condemned by the former Deputy National Coordinator of GYEEDA, Alhaji Tapsoba, who has thrown his support behind the Police Boss, encouraging him to perform his duties without any fear or favour.

Speaking to The Chronicle in an interview, Alhaji Tapsoba said those calling for the removal of the Regional Police Commander are either ill-informed or do not know the difference between public service and political appointments.

“We must know that the Police Service is purely non-partisan and personnel there are required to perform their duties without consideration to any political party.

“Governments will go and come but he police will also be there, their duty is to protect the citizenry and ensure law and order. It is absolutely unacceptable to frustrate any police officer from executing his or her duty,” Alhaji Tapsoba, who also heads Regional Security of the NDC noted.

The former GYEEDA Boss observed that the action of the NDC activists is inimical to the development and progress of the ruling party, adding that it has the tendency to affect the party’s quest to secure one million votes in the region.

“We should know that security has no party consideration. If an armed robber comes to attack you, he or she does not ask of your party affiliation. Beside that it is only when people live in peace and safety that they can go to the polls in December 2016 and vote for us,” he noted.

Betty Mould acted on solid grounds-Ajet Nasam

 

 

Snippets from the ruling of Justice Ajet-Nasam-the trial judge in the ‘Woyome trial’ indicates that former Attorney General (AG), Betty Mould Iddrisu did not act in isolation in the decisions leading to the state parting with Gh¢ 51 million judgment debt to businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome.

This is contrary to widespread public sentiments being propagated by a section of the public, particularly the opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) that Madam Betty Mould Idrissu was the ‘mastermind’ behind the controversial judgment debt payment to Alfred Woyome who was last week acquitted and discharged on criminal charges for claiming the GHC 51 million judgment debt.

Apparently, state prosecutors at the Attorney General’s office had tried to lay all the blame for the controversial payment on Madam Mould-Iddrisu but the judge countered them by saying their arguments were ‘not borne out by evidence on record’.

“I think, this submission [by State prosecutors] is not borne out by evidence on record. The head of Legal at the Finance Ministry [Paul Asimenu] wrote his view justifying the payment. There were other persons who met to deliberate on the petition. The decision, to me, was not wholly taken by the then Minister, Honourable Betty Mould- lddrisu.

Justice Ajet Nasam’s ruling which has made its way into the public domain, traces a whole chain of events that led to the controversial judgment debt payment, “ It is my considered opinion that, such criticism of the then Minister [Betty Mould Iddrissu] by the prosecutor is misplaced… The head of Legal at the Finance Ministry [Paul Asimenu] wrote his view justifying the payment. There were other persons who met to deliberate on the petition. The decision, to me was not wholly taken by the then Minister, Honourable Betty Mould Iddrisu.”

The High Court judge went further to name other key individuals who collectively deliberated on the issue before a final decision was reached to settle Mr. Woyome, who had already gone to court to press home his claims: “One of those members was Paul Asimenu who wrote Exhibit '20'. Another high-ranking personality, Honourable Ebo Barton-Odro wrote to late President Atta-Mills to justify the payment of the 2% to Alfred Agbesi Woyome. This is Exhibit ‘24’ Honourable Barton-Odro was then the Deputy Attorney General and Minister of Justice. He stated: - "Alfred Woyome’s claim was therefore based on the consortium's Financial Proposal which would have brought in funding …” the judge quoted.

“ I will further show why I am of the view that, the decision taken was not only that of Mrs. Betty Mould-lddrisu. In her quest for expert opinion on the Financial Engineering claim by the accused, Honourable Betty Mould-lddrisu wrote to those involved, including the Building Industry Consultants (B. I. C.), the Government Consultants on CAN 2008. One Magnus Rex Danquah replied the letter.”

Magnus Rex Danquah is said to have stated in his evidence that: "My Lord, the Attorney General who was new in office and lacked the institutional history of events that had already taken place believed the various misrepresentation made by the accused person thus took it upon herself to push for the monies being claimed by the accused person to be paid to him."

The learned Jurist said further that "Even in Ghanaian popular parlance, it is a maxim that: "Book no lie". These Exhibits were from the prosecution, not the accused, I do not see how I will reject to comment or look at those Exhibits the prosecution or defence tendered and admitted in evidence. These exhibits rather go to lead credence to the Accused defence that, he was justified to receive what was paid to him. There were expert advices from Ministry of Finance, Building Industry Consultants Limited (B. I. C.), Government Consultants and Rex Magnus Danquah. All these experts put in their recommendations for the payment of the money to Alfred Agbesi Woyome.

The erstwhile John Agyekum Kufuor led NPP administration has been fingered for masterminding the confusion after arbitrarily terminating the contract for Mr. Woyome’s consortium to raise a multi-million euro financing for several projects related to Ghana’s bid to host the 2006 African Cup of Nations in Ghana.

For reasons known only to the Kufuor-Administration, it terminated the contract, notwithstanding the fact that the central tender review committee set up to evaluate the over 70 bids submitted to them and other relevant state agencies have given Mr. Woyome and his consortium the ‘green light’ to raise the requisite funds.

This fact was also highlighted in the ruling after the High Court judge evaluated submissions made by Mr. Woyome in court including a statement that read: "The financial arrangements were made in respect of the concurrent approval given by the Central Tender Review Board for the award of contract to Vamed Engineering who transferred its rights on the project to Waterville Holdings (copies of letter of transfer and acceptance attached) and (copy of letter of Central Tender Review Board dated the 5th day of August 2005 attached). It was in these circumstances that the then Government terminated the entire process .....".

“ It is my opinion that this letter dated the 5th day of August, 2005 formed the basis of a binding agreement between Vamed and Government of Ghana and the processes having been terminated wrongfully by the Government, the claimants were entitled to compensations for serviced rendered," Justice Ajet Nasam emphasized.

Mr. Woyome between 2010 and 2011 made claims from the late John Evans Atta Mills administration of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) for some financial engineering bid for the CAN 2006 that went sour.

An aggrieved Mr. Woyome went to court around 2010 to press home his claim, which he succeeded in part through a consent judgment granted him. However, the judgment required the money to be paid to him in tranches of approximately Gh¢17 million each.

However, a Stay of Execution of the claims was secured in court by the State after the first tranche had been paid. Mysteriously, however, within the time of the Stay of Execution, the full GHC 51 million was paid.

According to sources, at the Attorney General’s department, this happened just about the time Madam Betty Mould Iddrisu exited office as the Attorney General and was succeeded by Martin Alamisi Benz Kaiser Amidu who is said to have declined to act on the matter when it was presented to him upon resumption of office as the new AG.

In what has been described as Mr. Martin Amidu’s neglect of his duties on the pending ‘Woyome’ judgment debt situation, the GHC 51 million was paid in the confusion.

Mr. Amidu, however, went after his predecessor, claiming she connived with Mr. Woyome and other public officials to sneak the payment through.

According to Mr. Woyome in his submissions to the Accra High Court during criminal proceedings leveled against him by the case after the money had been paid, the ‘Government of Ghana showed bad faith’.

He was hauled before court for Causing Financial Loss to the State and Defrauding the State by False Pretense, an indictment that resulted in a bitter and protracted lawsuit that has spanned over 3 years now.

Last week, the presiding Judge, Justice Ajet Nasam, having considered all the evidence, concluded that Mr. Woyome indeed deserved the payments as stated by all the public officials who worked with him when he made his controversial judgment debt claims.

Mr. Woyome made the claims based on agreement for him to conduct financial engineering for Sports Stadia and Facilities (€761 million), Hospitals and wellness centre (€329 million) and a Cobalt 60 Irradiation plant for the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC) for approximately €13 million.

The total amount Mr. Woyome was expected to raise was €1.12 billion upon which he made a 4% judgment debt claim (it was eventually reduced to a 2% claim) after the agreement was abruptly cancelled in the middle of the process by the Kufuor administration.

Gh¢51.2m saga: Woyome is a dubious character – Baako

 

Businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome is a "dubious" character, who wants the country to go after a "red herring" as far as the State’s attempt to retrieve the controversial Ghc51.2 million judgment debt paid him in 2010 is concerned, political pundit Kweku Baako Jr. has said.

Mr Baako was speaking in connection with a letter written by Mr Woyome to Attorney General Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong accusing her of "bias" in the case because, according to him, the AG and her private law firm benefitted from Ghc51.2 million.

Describing Mr Woyome’s letter as "diversionary and mischievous," the Editor-in-Chief of the Crusading Guide Newspaper told Samson Lardy Anyenini on Joy FM’s news analysis programme Newsfile on Saturday that: "Woyome is dubious. What a crafty guy?"

"I think that most of his claims have been of dubious validity. I don’t trust him one bit. I’m not being personal. It’s based on a track record that he has established for himself," he said.

Mr Baako wondered: "Where is the evidence that these monies came from the judgment debt? Where is the evidence that these monies were paid to Marietta? Even on the face of his own letter, there’s nothing and yet you had people running after this and thinking they had something to throw about. I was shocked."

He said Mr Woyome’s letter should have been "dismissed" with all the "contempt" it deserved the moment the financier of the governing National Democratic Congress (NDC) issued the letter.

Mr Woyome, who was recently acquitted and discharged by a High Court over charges of defrauding the state and causing financial loss said in the letter that the AG must recuse herself from the appeal case because of her bias in the matter.

According to Woyome, Mrs Appiah-Oppong, whose firm - Lithur Brew and Co - benefitted from the judgment debt case while representing Astro Invest and M-Power Pack in the same case before becoming AG, cannot appeal the case.

In his letter, Mr Woyome said: "Inasmuch as I’m not against the decision of the state to appeal, I’m particularly against your conduct and public utterances during the trial and after the judgment."

He added: "I find it difficult to reconcile your decision to involve yourself directly in this criminal case and notice of appeal you have authorised to be issued and served on me.

"It is a fact that you and your clients received approximately $1 million equivalent in Ghana cedis from the said judgment debt you now so much criminalise and want me jailed for. The cedi equivalent was GH¢1,474,393.00 through an Agricultural Development Bank cheque number 727324 dated 06/10/11 in the joint names of Ray and Ingeborg Smith.

"My confusion is as a result of your insistence that the fruit from the judgment debt from a court of competent jurisdiction, in fact, a judgment debt is criminal, you are a beneficiary of that fruit which you are seeking so hard to taint.

"It is my firm believe that another Attorney General should be the one pursuing this issue further since you are wearing a bias lens in making decisions concerning this case.”

"I further believe that with this bias lens you cannot properly and fairly advice the Government of Ghana on this issue of exercising the constitutional right of Attorney General as stated in Article 88 of the 1992 Constitution vis-à-vis my right under the same constitution of the Republic as a citizen.

"I’m humbly appealing to you to step aside or resign totally as attorney general for another person to pursue the appeal in the interest of justice," Woyome concluded.