A Fast Track High Court hearing the case of Alfred Agbesi Woyome and three others over payment of the controversial GH¢ 51.28 million judgment debt on Monday turned down an invitation by the defence to discharge the accused persons if prosecution was not ready for trial to start.

The Court, however, ordered the State to expedite action on the prosecution of the matter, saying it would not allow the State to use it as a remand court.

This is the fourth time that Woyome and three others: Samuel Neequaye-Tetteh, a Chief State Attorney at the Attorney-General's Department and his wife Gifty Neequaye-Tetteh a businesswoman and Paul Asimenu, Head of Legal Duties, Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning, have appeared before the Court.

In a ruling on Monday the court said it was time for the prosecution to decide on what to do instead of appearing before it to say it was investigating the matter.

The Court criticised the situation where accused persons were hurriedly put before court and when they are discharged, are arrested again and put before another court to be remanded in order for the prosecution to buy more time to conclude their investigations.

The Court said it was high time the tax payer knew what their taxes were being used for.

It said as far as it was concerned, in the matter before it, the accused persons had been charged and their pleas taken.

The ruling was given when Ms Cynthia Lamptey, Chief State Attorney and Acting Director for Public Prosecution, informed it that the Police were stilling investigating the matter.

Ms Lamptey reiterated that investigations ought to be extended abroad to have some documents and signatures authenticated.

She, therefore, pleaded for more time to also build the case docket and properly charge the accused persons.

“We pray the Court to be magnanimous to give us more time to complete investigations, evaluate evidence and ascertain whether a case can be made against them … and arraign them properly,” she said.

The defence team, however, objected to the prosecution’s line of arguments, saying if the prosecution was not ready the accused persons should be discharged.

Mr Osafo Buabeng, one of Woyome’s lawyers, said the trial must start once the accused had had their facts and charges read to them and wondered why the State could go to court just because it wanted to beat the 48 hour deadline set by the Constitution.

Mr Jah Josiah, who represented Samuel Neequaye-Tetteh and his wife Gifty, noted that from the submissions made by the prosecution, one could deduce that the action before the Court was premature.

Mr Yonni Kulendi, counsel for Paul Asimenu, said the State had no case based on the conclusion it had drawn from its submissions.

He debunked the assertions of the prosecution that they had come to Court with preferring charges against the accused persons.

Mr Kulendi said: “The State cannot come and throw in the towel to the Court to decide. The subject before court has been thrashed in the middle of complexities. People cannot be put before court and remanded on fanciful allegations otherwise we would be setting a dangerous precedence.”

Woyome, who has been charged with conspiracy and defrauding by false pretences, and corrupting a public officer, has pleaded not guilty.

Asimenu and Neequaye-Tetteh being held for corruption of public officer and abetment of crime, have also denied the charges.

Gifty also denied the charge of abetment of crime.

Woyome has been granted a GH¢20 million cedi bail with three sureties each to be justified. He is to report to the Police twice in a week.

Neequaye-Tetteh and Paul Asimenu were granted GH¢6, 000 bail with sureties each to be justified.

The court ordered Gifty to be on her former bail in the sum of GH¢ 500,000 with a surety because she is a nursing mother, and ordered her to report to the Police every Wednesday and Friday.

All the accused persons are to report at the Police Headquarters twice a week: Mondays and Fridays.

Ms Lamptey, who presented the facts of the case at the last sitting, said during 2009 Woyome made the then Attorney General Mrs Betty Mould-Iddrisu to believe by stating that he had a contract with the Government of Ghana.

The contract, according to Mr Woyome’s claim, was in relation to the construction of five sports stadia, but was unlawfully abrogated.

Ms Lamptey said Woyome , subsequently, filed a writ at the High Court claiming that he was owed GH¢ 41 million to which he had added an interest of GH¢ 10 million.

The Chief State Attorney said the money was paid in tranches, with GH¢ 17, 094,493.53 paid in February 2010. In January and April 2011, GH¢ 10 million cedis each was paid respectively, while the last tranche of GH¢ 14,188,987.06 was paid on September 12, 2011.

Ms Lamptey said preliminary investigations showed that the Government did not owe Woyome.

Neequaye-Tetteh, she said, drafted letters to the Minister of Finance and Economic Planning concerning the payment and refused to defend the action in court.

Ms Lamptey said it was found out that Woyome transferred GH¢ 400,000 to Gifty's account.

She said Asimenu, for his part, wrote opinions, quoted figures and sent information which created conditions for Woyome to be paid monies which were not due him.

During investigations the four were picked up by the Police, the Chief State Attorney said.

The case has been adjourned to April 30.**