Of the Supreme Court, Amidu and Woyome: Qui tam?

Read Comments Comments (6)

• Bennet 7 years ago

  This is a response from Pro.Asare @ Azar.I like his comment and therefore reproduce it in its entirety.Remember Azar is an ardent critic of this government and an npp operative but he also believes in the rule of law so sees ...
  read full comment

  This is a response from Pro.Asare @ Azar.I like his comment and therefore reproduce it in its entirety.Remember Azar is an ardent critic of this government and an npp operative but he also believes in the rule of law so sees this as overboard and a knee jeck political decision from the sc.
  
  "The Supreme Court has properly ruled that Woyome must refund amounts unlawfully paid to him to the Republic.
  
  Because the payment violated the Constitution, Article 2 granted standing for Amidu, as a private Attorney General, to enforce the Constitution at the Supreme Court.
  
  The Court's holding on the constitutional question made Woyome a judgment debtor, the government a judgment creditor, terminated Amidu's standing, reduced the issue to one of debt enforcement by the judgment creditor and ended the constitutional dispute.
  
  The Republic as a judgment creditor can enforce the judgment by various means including issuing a writ of fieri facias; garnishee proceedings; a charging order; etc. Of course, to the extent that the debt is not paid, interest accrues at the statutory rate.
  
  As theatrical as it is to witness the spectacle of a private citizen, stepping in the shoes of the government, to cross examine a judgment debtor of the government in the apex court, I cannot find a sound jurisprudential ground to support the Court's populist ruling.
  
  The ruling, if taken seriously and allowed to extend to similar cases, fundamentally eviscerates the Office of Attorney General and rewrites the Civil Procedure law of the Country.
  
  And then as a matter of looking forward, what can such cross examination achieve? No matter the outcome of this exercise, it is still only the judgment creditor that can enforce the judgment.
  
  I cannot, like the majority of the country, celebrate a ruling that allows Judges to rewrite the Country's Constitution and Civil Procedure in such a revolutionary way and that converts the Court into a theater of the absurd!
  
  Respectfully and Regrettably, I dissent!
  
  Da Yie!

  reply
• Kwabena Yeboah 7 years ago

  I would agree 100% with Azar when all things are equal, and the government (AG) is performing her responsibilities as prescribed by law. But all things are not equal in this particular government, considering the ramification ...
  read full comment

  I would agree 100% with Azar when all things are equal, and the government (AG) is performing her responsibilities as prescribed by law. But all things are not equal in this particular government, considering the ramifications of SC judgment. I am sorry Azar is silent on AG's performance with respect to SC's ruling.
  
  It's been 2 years since the SC entered judgment against Woyome, and all that SC is doing is protecting public interest, because public interest supersedes all other interests. Amidu's cross examination of Woyome under oath, if anything, will show why this government and the AG are dragging their feet. Should the public know why the AG has not complied with the SC ruling? Absolutely!!! And to counter Azar's assertion that the judges are rewriting the country's Constitution, I would say the judges are responding appropriately to the idiosyncrasies of this particular government. Laws are not cut in stones, I might say; rather, laws are dynamic and respond to vagaries of situations.

  reply
• Kotey 7 years ago

  It is often said that The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine. So Amidu must let the due process take its course.In a volatile political climate as this the decision of the sc to allow Amidu to examine W ...
  read full comment

  It is often said that The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine. So Amidu must let the due process take its course.In a volatile political climate as this the decision of the sc to allow Amidu to examine Woyome is a bad judgement.
  
  Amidu has not hidden his disdain for this government and intends to embarrass them at the least opportunity.Amidu will therefore turn this chance into a political circus which will obviously solicit a response and could derail the peace.
  
  If there should be an unrest in the country,the open bias being shown by the sc will be the cause.

  reply
• Kwabena Yeboah 7 years ago

  What peace? Why don't you point your finger at the Attorney-General, but instead at SC and Martin Amidu?

  What peace? Why don't you point your finger at the Attorney-General, but instead at SC and Martin Amidu?

  reply
• Marquis 7 years ago

  The Supreme Court has now decided to usurp the powers of the government and Attorney General. The decision to allow Martin Amidu to question Woyome is not law and unfortunately in bad faith. They are now very bias and with ti ...
  read full comment

  The Supreme Court has now decided to usurp the powers of the government and Attorney General. The decision to allow Martin Amidu to question Woyome is not law and unfortunately in bad faith. They are now very bias and with time will lose its credibility

  reply
• Kwabena Yeboah 7 years ago

  Qui tam or no Qui tam, the paramount interest of the public trumps all other interests.
  
  Here we go again, it's deja vu all over again with the Montie 3 criminals, where this same partisan AG refused to prosecute the three ...
  read full comment

  Qui tam or no Qui tam, the paramount interest of the public trumps all other interests.
  
  Here we go again, it's deja vu all over again with the Montie 3 criminals, where this same partisan AG refused to prosecute the three criminals who threatened to rape and murder SC Justices on air.
  
  Isn't it ironic that the same AG is refusing to collect debts owed to the state despite SC judgment against the culprit. And here we are again, just like the Montie 3 criminals, with some lawyer quoting some 17 century law to imply SC is acting ultra vires. Here is the maxim: If the AG is shirking her responsibilities in prosecuting these crimes for partisan purposes, then the Court must pronounce judgments that protects public interest, qui tam or no qui tam. Public interest supersedes all interests.

  reply