Read Comments Comments (33)

• Kojo Essuman 10 years ago

  Thank you,DR SAS.As an advocate of DEMOCRACY,I hope the Woyome case has now made it very clear to you,the difference between WHITEMAN'S DEMOCRACY and DEMOCRACY in BLACK AFRICA with particular reference to Ghana,where laws are ...
  read full comment

  Thank you,DR SAS.As an advocate of DEMOCRACY,I hope the Woyome case has now made it very clear to you,the difference between WHITEMAN'S DEMOCRACY and DEMOCRACY in BLACK AFRICA with particular reference to Ghana,where laws are easily circumvented.Ours is not DICTATORSHIP.Am I right?

  reply
• Guy Fawkes 10 years ago

  Thank you for a thoughtful but depressing piece. It confirms what most Ghanaians shudder to believe. Ghana is a democracy in name only; witness the Supreme Court farce. Ghana is a sham of a neo-colonial legacy plus 58 years o ...
  read full comment

  Thank you for a thoughtful but depressing piece. It confirms what most Ghanaians shudder to believe. Ghana is a democracy in name only; witness the Supreme Court farce. Ghana is a sham of a neo-colonial legacy plus 58 years of steady deterioration from that point on. Due to unbridled corruption and the lack of any form of accountability it is infinitely more dependent on other countries than when it was a colony. Independence? Hah-ha.

  reply
• GIRLS SP 10 years ago

  What is the Ewe criminologist Daniel Kwesi Pryce in USA saying about his criminal brother Alfred Agbesi Woyome acquittal and discharegement?

  What is the Ewe criminologist Daniel Kwesi Pryce in USA saying about his criminal brother Alfred Agbesi Woyome acquittal and discharegement?

  reply
• SARPONG 10 years ago

  Believe me,Dr Pryce has morals and will definitely be against this Woyome stealing

  Believe me,Dr Pryce has morals and will definitely be against this Woyome stealing

  reply
• Bonso 10 years ago

  The recurring word in this gigantic legal piece was
  
  "as-i-nine [as-uh-nahyn]".
  
  adjective
  1. obstinate or stupid
  
  2. resembling an ass
  
  adjective
  
  1. foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid:
  
  "It is ...
  read full comment

  The recurring word in this gigantic legal piece was
  
  "as-i-nine [as-uh-nahyn]".
  
  adjective
  1. obstinate or stupid
  
  2. resembling an ass
  
  adjective
  
  1. foolish, unintelligent, or silly; stupid:
  
  "It is surprising that supposedly intelligent people can make such asinine statements."
  
  2.of or like an ass:
  
  "asinine obstinacy; asinine features."
  
  The legal terms are
  
  fatuous, ludicrous, obtuse, opaque, puerile, unreasonable
  _________________________________
  
  The law is unravelling before our eyes as charade. its sad to use empty words to justify the stealing of so much money. Its a farce. No one comes out of all this well...Its all assinine, really...
  
  
  Woyome has rendered the whole apparatus of state and legal machinery obsolete, paper-full and just verbose...It has no meaning at all to the ordinary man with all the writings of pompous men, making fun of themselves by their endless explanations of what is a straightforward question and answer:
  
  That Ndc and Woyome put fraudulent papers together to take Government's money to the tune of GH51 MILLION CEDIS, AND SHARED IT AMONG THEMSELVES!

  reply
• INXS 10 years ago

  C'mon, what has Pryce got to do with this? Does he know Woyome?
  
  Be serious, address the issues and stop your campaign of hatred against people who haven't done you any wrong.

  C'mon, what has Pryce got to do with this? Does he know Woyome?
  
  Be serious, address the issues and stop your campaign of hatred against people who haven't done you any wrong.

  reply
• PRINCE AWUAH 10 years ago

  By these assesement, it means the executive has a deep hand in the judiciary. But can we also say that cases against individuals by the government, should always favour the government? It is interesting that most of you are r ...
  read full comment

  By these assesement, it means the executive has a deep hand in the judiciary. But can we also say that cases against individuals by the government, should always favour the government? It is interesting that most of you are refusing to re-visit the genesis of the case. Has Kufour's government ever had anything of such nature doing with Woyome? That is what we should be asking in the first place. If yes, why did Kufour criminally misused his office and abrogate the contract and without tender, gave it to the Chinese? If Betty and Barton Oduro should be charged, then those thieves within the npp who abrogated the contract in the first place should also be charged. Dirty tribal bigots like Osafo Marfo and the rest should also be charged incuding the main thief Kufour. Leave Woyome alone? It is the same court that set the ugly idiot and animal looking Mpiani and the rest free. You idiots and tribal bigots saw nothing wrong with the judgement. I called on Mr Woyome not to pay a cent to any mother fucker.Has Kufour and his looting brigades told us what he did with the vodafone,the Ghana Airways and the drillship money? Stupid idiots.Yopu people need a psychaitrist to examine the degree of your insanity. After all if the Attorney general is sacked as you people are calling for, she will not be the first. Your useless and foolish old man,Akufo Addo has also,once been booted out from that place when Tsatsu floped him to the floor, and when he prefered a bogus charge against him. Ghanaians have not forgotten the charge that reads;The president vrs Tsatsu Tsikata; Very sad. This is the foolish certificateless man who wants to rule over us. Swines.

  reply
• Prof Lungu 10 years ago

  PRINCE AWUAH,
  So what?
  
  Do we not expect to next government to set things right, if there were gross violations of the law or procedure by a previous government?
  
  Who compelled the NDC government to pay?
  
  Nice try!

  PRINCE AWUAH,
  So what?
  
  Do we not expect to next government to set things right, if there were gross violations of the law or procedure by a previous government?
  
  Who compelled the NDC government to pay?
  
  Nice try!

  reply
• kaketonti 10 years ago

  Powerful good slap;Leave Woyome and charge Thief K4/NPP era

  Powerful good slap;Leave Woyome and charge Thief K4/NPP era

  reply
• David Wuni 10 years ago

  Prince Awuah, you are an intorelant political bigot, who is blinded by fanatica political afiliation.

  Prince Awuah, you are an intorelant political bigot, who is blinded by fanatica political afiliation.

  reply
• Prof Lungu 10 years ago

  Dr. Samuel Adjei Sarfo,
  We must say this is a must read from all.
  
  The people must still ask why there has not been "...any governmental action to enforce the Supreme Court judgment," even if today they are telling us the ...
  read full comment

  Dr. Samuel Adjei Sarfo,
  We must say this is a must read from all.
  
  The people must still ask why there has not been "...any governmental action to enforce the Supreme Court judgment," even if today they are telling us they are going to confiscate Woyome's assets.
  
  Also, we believe that former Attorney General Martin Amidu is not a vigilante in the sense he did not attempt to punish anyone for a "crime summarily". We are thinking he is just like you - a lawyer who saw an injustice, a wrong against the commonwealth, but actually filed a case on behalf of the people and himself.

  reply
• Kwame 10 years ago

  A contract is like a mess into which people enter or parties enter. Thus rules are made by the same contract how a person can enter and how he can come out. Let us look at the Agbesi Woyome and the state from this point of vi ...
  read full comment

  A contract is like a mess into which people enter or parties enter. Thus rules are made by the same contract how a person can enter and how he can come out. Let us look at the Agbesi Woyome and the state from this point of view. We stated at the beginning of this case that Woyome is not an employee of the Ministries of Youth and Sports and Finance and Economic Planning, thus can not take the agreement to parliament for ratification. Thus from my none-legal point of view it it rather the state that perpetrated fraud on the citizen by not taking the contract to parliament for ratification. Again it is the state that did not follow the proper procedure that was to be taken to terminate the contract, just like any other contract. We also stated that the Supreme Court has preached the right of Alfred Agbesi Woyeme by depriving him what he is entitled to as a result of someone's action and inaction.
  However where this case became pregnant and was conceived was at the point Kufuor and NPP terminate the contract without adhering to all what will make the contract uncontract, as the case is with unemployment of a person whose contact has been terminated.
  When lawyers are in infantile disorder, jumping, insulting and cursing we ask in their profession is there a case of a lawyer being punished because he lost a case. And had a judge been punished for not giving a fair judgment? Let us respect ourselves and prove that we are intellectuals and not highway men and women.

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago

  Dr SAS, after nearly four years, yesterday, I realised we agreed on the same but except that because you are an Attorney, you had to disagree with me first before coming to the same conclusion. Perhaps, we were saying the sam ...
  read full comment

  Dr SAS, after nearly four years, yesterday, I realised we agreed on the same but except that because you are an Attorney, you had to disagree with me first before coming to the same conclusion. Perhaps, we were saying the same thing but using different language.
  
  Back to your article. I am not clear why you are of the view that, Martin Amidu "had no locos in the case and his writ of certiorari should not have been entertained at the Supreme Court because the matter was res judicata insofar as it had been completely resolved by the court to the apparent satisfaction of all parties involved".
  
  First, are you aware that any citizen of Ghana can take a matter of constitutional nature to the Supreme Court and the person does not have to be directly or personally involved in the subject matter? Are you also aware that the Supreme Court as the final appellate court of the land has the authority to reverse the decision of lower courts whether the decision of the lower court had been accepted by the parties involved or not, if in the view of the Supreme Court, the lower court's decision was unconstitutional or the lower court erred in law?
  
  For the above questions, I disagree with your above quoted view.
  
  I also think that you are unfairly putting emphasis on the Supreme Court ruling regarding the failure to take the foreign agreements to parliament and therefore the agreement was void. That ruling only covered the Waterville and Isofoton contracts and not Woyome since Woyome did not have a contract. The two were international contracts and as I have said on many occasions Woyome was only an agent of Waterville. Your position is a bit misleading because the Supreme Court did not rule that Woyome's contract which never existed was unconstitutional because it lacked approval by parliament bu rather those of Waterville and Isofoton.
  
  You are absolutely right that Betty Mould Iddrisu, Barton Oduro, Samuel Neequaye-Tetteh and Paul Asimenu should have been tried and jailed for the collusion and connivance in this 419 scam on the state. All the four should be in jail by now. As for the Judge, he should have been investigated and if found to have benefited from the loot, tried and jailed. Sadly, that will not happen in Ghana under an NDC government.

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 10 years ago

  1. The Supreme court has two main jurisdictions: a. That of constitutional interpretation b. That of certiorari (appellate). Woyome's matter is not "a matter of constitutional nature" and has nothing to do with any constituti ...
  read full comment

  1. The Supreme court has two main jurisdictions: a. That of constitutional interpretation b. That of certiorari (appellate). Woyome's matter is not "a matter of constitutional nature" and has nothing to do with any constitutional interpretation; it was a civil matter over which the lower court had made a final pronouncement. The parties in litigation had resolved the matter since the government side did not appeal but promptly paid up the judgment debt.
  
  The government side had the right to appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court on certiorari, but it did not. The Supreme court was thus deprived of its ability to exercise its appellate jurisdiction since none of the parties in litigation, who only had the locos to appeal,failed to appeal. Under the circumstances, no none-party citizen can appeal on behalf of the government side. That is why I said that the Supreme Court should not have entertained Amidu's writ. He could not have appealed the matter on behalf of the government when the Chief government attorney abandoned the cause and paid up.
  
  2. If we assume that the matter was properly brought before the Supreme court, its judgment would still be error. Look at it this way: Woyome is dragged before the Supreme Court which told him that a contract, of which he is a direct beneficiary, is not good because it did not have any parliamentary approval. Although Woyome may not have a direct contract, since he is a beneficiary with a huge stakes in the outcome of any breach, if the contract is considered invalid for Isofoton, it is also considered invalid for Woyome since he does have a vested interest in it. In this sense, whatever affected Isofoton under the contract also affected Woyome.
  
  That is why the same reasoning used to render the Isofoton contract invalid was used against Woyome. And I am saying that that reasoning is illogical.....In and of itself, it is illogical to say that a contract is not valid because it was not approved by parliament. If the matter was properly re-litigated at the Supreme Court, the fact that Woyome had no direct contract with the government, and that he was paid up by Isotofon for any contractual connection, ought to have formed the basis for the Supreme Court ruling. Strangely, it did not, and the Supreme Court made the rather unusual ruling that implied that there must have been a contract, albeit a defective one, between Woyome and the government but that that contract was invalid for lack of parliamentary approval. If you take this ruling to its next logical conclusion, you find that judgment to be error. And that has been my position since the very beginning.....
  
  3. But the fraud in all this is that the government effectively terminated the contract with Isofoton and paid the company up, which in turn paid up Woyome. So under the perculiar circumstances, Woyome had no business suing the government anywhere. But he fraudulently brought a suit against the government, and the government fraudulently lost and paid him more money. End of the matter, except that those government officials involved should have been held accountable. and on this, we all agree.
  
  4. I don't know what you mean by:
  
  " I realized we agreed on the same but except that because you are an Attorney, you had to disagree with me first before coming to the same conclusion."
  
  You have to be specific as to what "we agree on the same" but for which I argued for the simple sake of argument. I think on this particular matter, I have been very consistent. My explanation of the law has been very clear from the beginning that Woyome's law suit was fraudulent, and the government's failure to defend against it was fraudulent, and that the Supreme Court judgmnent was asinine, and the fraud charge brought against Woyome was error in cause.
  
  Between me and you, the only disagreement has to do with the Supreme Court suit by Amidu and its concomitant outcome. And on this, we still have a fundamental disagreement: You see the Supreme Court exercise of its appellate jurisdiction as proper; I see it as improper.

  reply
• Osuo Abrubuor 10 years ago

  "But he fraudulently brought a suit against the government, and the government fraudulently lost and paid him more money. End of the matter"
  
  Since the whole basis of this case was fraudulent, why should Wayome, let alone h ...
  read full comment

  "But he fraudulently brought a suit against the government, and the government fraudulently lost and paid him more money. End of the matter"
  
  Since the whole basis of this case was fraudulent, why should Wayome, let alone his co-conspirators, go scott free? What message does this send to the rest of the citizenry of Ghana?
  
  Argued in the dry legalistic terms it may appear to be a cut and dried case but tell me this, Dr SAS, when did it become alright to steal money that could have been used to build hospitals and schools, so long as you conspire to get it sanctioned in court.
  
  Isn't there a higher moral court that we should all answer to?

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 10 years ago

  The last two sentences in what you quote of my post should fully read:
  
  "End of the matter, except that those government officials involved should have been held accountable. And on this, we all agree."
  
  Inherent in this ...
  read full comment

  The last two sentences in what you quote of my post should fully read:
  
  "End of the matter, except that those government officials involved should have been held accountable. And on this, we all agree."
  
  Inherent in this quote is my strong conviction that "the government officials involved should have been held accountable".....
  
  And I do not support Woyome's fraud; I am only concerned about the legal confusion surrounding it.
  
  I have stated several times that the real culprits are "The people who betrayed the country by failing to defend it against a fraudulent law suit, a judge who gave a default judgment without examining the validity of plaintiff's claim, and high government officials who quickly authorized payment and took their share of the loot". These should be standing trial for fraud and causing financial loss to the state."
  In the conclusion to my article, I wrote,
  
  "Elsewhere, the whole government should fall upon this gargantuan fraud perpetrated against the people, but these criminal elements that perpetrated this unprecedented fraud and aided and abetted in these huge financial losses to the state are walking about free...."
  
  Need I say more?

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago

  Sorry, Dr SAS for not making myself clear on 4. It related to your last comment or response on my article on Saturday. In the end we both agreed on all issues.
  
  I am of the view that you are wrong in concluding that a Ghana ...
  read full comment

  Sorry, Dr SAS for not making myself clear on 4. It related to your last comment or response on my article on Saturday. In the end we both agreed on all issues.
  
  I am of the view that you are wrong in concluding that a Ghanaian citizen of sound mind, in this case Martin Amidu could not take a case involving the state and an international organisation or a corporate body to the Supreme Court when that matter was about constitutional interpretation. The Constitution gives that right to all Ghanaian citizens of sound mind, so Martin had the locos to do so and did so rightly under the 1992 Constitution.
  
  Are you aware that any Ghanaian citizen of sound mind could challenge presidential election result at the Supreme Court and not only the candidate/s or political parties?

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 10 years ago

  If you found a constitutional question in Woyome's case, you will find a constitutional question in every other case......
  
  You should ask yourself what could be the constitutional question in a breach of contract case agai ...
  read full comment

  If you found a constitutional question in Woyome's case, you will find a constitutional question in every other case......
  
  You should ask yourself what could be the constitutional question in a breach of contract case against the government by a private citizen in this instant matter?
  
  That question will be whether a private individual who is not a party to a suit has LOCUS to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court.
  And I am saying that the constitution does not provide such appellate standing for non-parties. That type of locus will fly in the face of simple commonsense. Neither does it provide a pathway for any citizen to yank a resolved case from the bosom of the lower court to be re-litigated at the Supreme Court.
  
  You are simply wrong about the presidential elections because the process of challenging it is clearly prescribed by the constitution. But there is no space in the constitution for that kind of action brought by Amidu, no matter how well-intentioned or patriotic. But this discussion now appears moot insofar as Woyome is not appealing for review. Besides, as in the contempt case against certain journalists and political party officials, the Supreme Court has gotten away with another dubious application of the law.
  
  BTW, by extension of your flawed logic, can I also go and appeal on behalf of Woyome as a private citizen?

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 10 years ago

  Article 64(1) "the validity of the election of the President may be challenged only by a citizen of Ghana who may present a petition for the purpose to the Supreme Court within twenty-one days after the declaration of the res ...
  read full comment

  Article 64(1) "the validity of the election of the President may be challenged only by a citizen of Ghana who may present a petition for the purpose to the Supreme Court within twenty-one days after the declaration of the result of the election in respect of which the petition is presented".
  
  My logic about the constitutional right of a citizen being able to challenge an international agreements/contracts between Waterville and Isofoton (both foreign companies) and Government of Ghana that was not ratified by parliament as required under the constitution is not flawed and that is what happened. Stop roping in the Woyome case. That was by default (being a sub-contract of Waterville) and not directly with the Government of Ghana.

  reply
• SARPONG 10 years ago

  "by extension of your flawed logic, can I also go and appeal on behalf of Woyome as a private citizen? "
  
  You mean you can go and appeal a case finally adjudicated by a Supreme Court? What court will you file to challenge t ...
  read full comment

  "by extension of your flawed logic, can I also go and appeal on behalf of Woyome as a private citizen? "
  
  You mean you can go and appeal a case finally adjudicated by a Supreme Court? What court will you file to challenge this appeal, the same Supreme court or lower court?

  reply
• Kenneth 10 years ago

  You can ask the sc to review its decision.

  You can ask the sc to review its decision.

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 10 years ago

  See Kenneth's terse reply above......
  
  In review in Ghana, the number of judges who first sat on the matter will be increased to reconsider the matter.....
  
  Elsewhere, the number will be the same but new and further argum ...
  read full comment

  See Kenneth's terse reply above......
  
  In review in Ghana, the number of judges who first sat on the matter will be increased to reconsider the matter.....
  
  Elsewhere, the number will be the same but new and further arguments will be heard. So there is indeed an appeal against a Supreme Court decision, only that it is called a review at this point. For exmple, Akufo Addo could have appealed against the elections decision, but he demurred...
  
  But my point in all this is to demonstrate the silliness of Kofi Atta's argument. Can I, as a private citizen, go and ask for a review on behalf of Woyome while I am no party to the suit? The answer is "no", unless I formulate a constitutional question around the matter: and here, such a constitutional question could be whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to re-litigate a matter that has been concluded by a lower court? This question will have nothing to do with the merits of Woyome's case itself, but it is a good constitutional question.
  
  Rest assured that I choose my arguments very carefully, and I raely fail anywhere. The only thing I have found out is that members of the Ghanaian justice system don't know the animal called "Google search engine" and have no system of compulsory continuing legal education and have not refreshed their memory on the laws they learned one score years ago. This is a polite way of saying that they are per se clueless.

  reply
• SARPONG 10 years ago

  Kofi, I do I agree with your assertions here. How can Dr. SAS say the lower court has made a final decision? Lower courts cannot make final decisions until the highest court says a decision is final.
  
  "Somebody has naively ...
  read full comment

  Kofi, I do I agree with your assertions here. How can Dr. SAS say the lower court has made a final decision? Lower courts cannot make final decisions until the highest court says a decision is final.
  
  "Somebody has naively stated:
  "All the state has to do is to file an order (writ) of execution which simply means they intend to collect the debt by any means legal including placing liens on Woyome's properties"
  
  Dr SAS, you know the said naïve person was me so you should have stated in your article I made that statement and it is not true and I would have respected that but you went ahesd and stated some laws in Texas that you fully did not discuss. I am not a lawyer as you know but have basic knowledge of the law or can do a basic research.
  
  "But what people fail to realize is that under the law of judgment liens, certain properties cannot be touched. For example,"
  
  Dr SAS, let even assume Woyome case was in Texas, he cannot benefit from all the exemptions you have stated here because Woyome first has to file for bankcruptcy, either chapter 7 or 13 first and declare all his properties before he can get the RELIEVE you have stated here, until then, his creditor, in this case the state of Ghana can go after his properties and that is what Ghana intends doing. Even if Woyome files for bankcruptcy, it does not mean he can keep all his properties even in Texas.
  
  He can keep his primary residence and a car and the value of these properties should not exceed certain amount.
  
  TEXAS EXEMPTION DESCRIPTION
  
  LAW SECTION
  
  
  Homestead
  
  Unlimited; property cannot exceed 1 acre in town, village, city or 100 acres (200 acres for families) elsewhere; sale proceeds exempt for 6 months after sale (need not occupy if not acquire another home, Property 41.003)
  
  If you have five homes in Texas and you file for bankcruptcy, the law will make available to your creditors four houses they can sell to recoup their money and if you have five cars with a five, the law I believe will let you keep only two cars.
  
  "And the object lesson here is that Ghana may have similar laws purported to protect indebted persons from being stripped of their human dignity, and if so, Woyome will have to go beyond the threshold of the exemptions to be compelled to pay any judgment debt. There is no evidence that he will fall into the catchment group if he does not have any adequate disposable income sitting in his account as we speak."
  
  Here you are making it seem like Woyome is free to keep his properties. Woyome has landed properties the government of Ghana is aware of and though I believe Woyome shared this almost fifty two million gargantuan Ghana 'choppable' cedis with others and there is no way we can recover even half of the amount, he still have a sizeable properties in Ghana and anywhere they can find it to defray part of this money.
  
  I do though agree with you that, charges of fraud and causing financial loss to the state was not winnable since it was Ghana that agreed with him he deserves the money and Woyome who was not an Employee of the government and decided to award himself that money cannot be charged for causing financial loss to the state, that was a dumb charge from the Attorney General department.
  
  Betty Mould, Barton Odro and others who made the decision to award him that money without going to court to challenge him should be charged for causing financial loss to Ghana.

  reply
• SARPONG 10 years ago

  CORRECTION
  
  
  Kofi, I do I agree with your assertions here. How can Dr. SAS say the lower court has made a final decision? Lower courts cannot make final decisions until the highest court says a decision is final.
  
  "Som ...
  read full comment

  CORRECTION
  
  
  Kofi, I do I agree with your assertions here. How can Dr. SAS say the lower court has made a final decision? Lower courts cannot make final decisions until the highest court says a decision is final.
  
  "Somebody has naively stated:
  "All the state has to do is to file an order (writ) of execution which simply means they intend to collect the debt by any means legal including placing liens on Woyome's properties"
  
  Dr SAS, you know the said naïve person was me so you should have stated in your article I made that statement and it is not true and I would have respected that but you went ahead and stated some laws in Texas that you fully did not discuss. I am not a lawyer as you know but have basic knowledge of the law or can do a basic research.
  
  "But what people fail to realize is that under the law of judgment liens, certain properties cannot be touched. For example,"
  
  Dr SAS, let even assume Woyome case was in Texas, he cannot benefit from all the exemptions you have stated here because Woyome first has to file for bankcruptcy, either chapter 7 or 13 first and declare all his properties before he can get the RELIEVE you have stated here, until then, his creditor, in this case the state of Ghana can go after his properties and that is what Ghana intends doing. Even if Woyome files for bankcruptcy, it does not mean he can keep all his properties even in Texas.
  
  He can keep his primary residence and a car and the value of these properties should not exceed certain amount.
  
  TEXAS EXEMPTION DESCRIPTION
  
  LAW SECTION
  
  
  Homestead
  
  Unlimited; property cannot exceed 1 acre in town, village, city or 100 acres (200 acres for families) elsewhere; sale proceeds exempt for 6 months after sale (need not occupy if not acquire another home, Property 41.003)
  
  If you have five homes in Texas and you file for bankcruptcy, the law will make available to your creditors four houses they can sell to recoup their money and if you have five cars with a wife, the law I believe will let you keep only two cars.
  
  "And the object lesson here is that Ghana may have similar laws purported to protect indebted persons from being stripped of their human dignity, and if so, Woyome will have to go beyond the threshold of the exemptions to be compelled to pay any judgment debt. There is no evidence that he will fall into the catchment group if he does not have any adequate disposable income sitting in his account as we speak."
  
  Here you are making it seem like Woyome is free to keep his properties. Woyome has landed properties the government of Ghana is aware of and though I believe Woyome shared this almost fifty two million gargantuan Ghana 'choppable' cedis with others and there is no way we can recover even half of the amount, he still have a sizeable properties in Ghana and anywhere they can find it to defray part of this money.
  
  I do though agree with you that, charges of fraud and causing financial loss to the state was not winnable since it was Ghana that agreed with him he deserves the money and Woyome who was not an Employee of the government and decided to award himself that money cannot be charged for causing financial loss to the state, that was a dumb charge from the Attorney General department.
  
  Betty Mould, Barton Odro and others who made the decision to award him that money without going to court to challenge him should be charged for causing financial loss to Ghana.

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 10 years ago

  1. A lower court's decision is final until it is overturned by a higher court on proper appeal. If there is no proper appeal, the lower court's decision is final. The government side did not appeal against the Woyome award; i ...
  read full comment

  1. A lower court's decision is final until it is overturned by a higher court on proper appeal. If there is no proper appeal, the lower court's decision is final. The government side did not appeal against the Woyome award; instead, it paid up, so the matter was closed. And the certiorari filed by the citizen was therefore ill-conceived, but now somewhat valid because Woyome did not seek any review.
  
  2. If it were in Texas, Woyome would have all the benefits I described without having to file for any type of bankruptcy. What is more, filing for bankruptcy would be a further method to add to his protection.
  
  I made it conditional that if Ghana had similar laws, Woyome would virtually pay nothing, unless he has property beyond any exemptions. So there is no argument here.
  
  3. The laughable matter remaining is that the Attorney General's office is now going to consult the Supreme Court on its way forward as to how to enforce the judgment against Woyome! Now talk about archetypal cluelessness about Ghana's civil procedure by those officials within Ghana's justice system!

  reply
• Kenneth 10 years ago

  SAS legal reasoning on the outcome of the Woyome case seems sound to me although I disagree with his introduction and his conclusion probably based on his lack of details about the role of Woyome in both the government and W ...
  read full comment

  SAS legal reasoning on the outcome of the Woyome case seems sound to me although I disagree with his introduction and his conclusion probably based on his lack of details about the role of Woyome in both the government and Waterville and Isofoton contracts.I am not conversant with the details but I gather my impression from what I read from the reported court proceedings and the Ghanian papers as an outsider but certainly not from the Kweku Baako's figment of imagination which Kofi relies on.
  
  In the first place Woyome as I understand it had acted on behalf of both the government and these firms as a financial broker to generate funds for government projects and also has an investment in these firms as a result.There are documents to show that the government of the npp encouraged and gave him the go ahead for these transactions.As to whether he performed these duties fully or not or whether he deserves that money is what is the subject of litigation.
  
  The criminal aspect is just a political exercise and the decision of the SC was just one of those exercises to satisfy public opinion and go along with the public perception of Amidu as a vigilante protecting the public purse.Incidentally it was this same Amidu who paid the bulk of the Woyome judgement debt,even more than Betty Mould.I don't take Amidu serious because his was actuated more by vengeance as a result of his dismissal than his concern for the monies that he had actually paid the bulk of.
  
  Technically the sc had ruled that the contract is a foreign contract and therefore it opens the door for international arbitration if a party is not happy with its outcome.And as SAS said it will be difficult to to retrieve the money on the legal technicalities and more so if the Hull formula governing international arbitration is used.What we have to look at is how to regulate intermediaries who broker our international finance for our projects.I think the lack of effective regulation is giving these brokers a field day.
  
  The E&O consortium who raised finance for our Oil projects are as guilty as Woyome in their lust for riches and both the npp and ndc have used these brokers to raise funds for their political parties.The present hullabaloo is just a hoodwink by the administration,the Judiciary and the political parties as a mere exercise in throwing dust in the public eye.

  reply
• INXS 10 years ago

  Because SAS is an NPP fanatic, he stops short of extending the culprits beyond the members of the current government. This whole thing started with the NPP government. The NDC seems to have benefited in this more than the pre ...
  read full comment

  Because SAS is an NPP fanatic, he stops short of extending the culprits beyond the members of the current government. This whole thing started with the NPP government. The NDC seems to have benefited in this more than the previous government but there are a few heads in the previous government which must roll along with those of the current government. If we are to truly fight corruption in our country, we cannot look at things with partisan eyes. EVERY GUILTY PARTY must be brought to trial. We cannot use legal niceties to exculpate others who happen to be members of the party we support. We should also fight corruption in the party we support. The Woyome saga cannot all be blamed on the current government. Everybody who benefited from it should be made to pay, no matter their party colours.

  reply
• Prof Lungu 10 years ago

  YOUR: "...Everybody who benefited from it should be made to pay, no matter their party colours..."
  
  OUR COMMENT: We agree! But the reality is, it is the government in power who has the power/right to prosecute. The onus is ...
  read full comment

  YOUR: "...Everybody who benefited from it should be made to pay, no matter their party colours..."
  
  OUR COMMENT: We agree! But the reality is, it is the government in power who has the power/right to prosecute. The onus is on Mahama, Bagbin, and their Justice/AJ. In that context, you will agree that NPP can't "fight corruption" today, next week, or next month.
  
  The last we heard, Mr. Mahama said he was a fixer. Well, let's see the fix. Or, might talk be cheaper in this case?

  reply
• Baldhead 10 years ago

  Woyome had NO valid contract upon which to demand any payment - and he knew it. Ghana's constitution requires parliamentary approval, and it is the duty of both parties in the contract to ensure that the contract meets the di ...
  read full comment

  Woyome had NO valid contract upon which to demand any payment - and he knew it. Ghana's constitution requires parliamentary approval, and it is the duty of both parties in the contract to ensure that the contract meets the dictates of the constitution. Furthermore, Honorable Martin Amidu certainly had "LOCUS" to file his writ, and the Supreme Court was correct in its decision to accept and rule on it. In case Mr Lawyer Sarfo is not aware, Ghana's constitution empowers each citizen to defend the country's interest. I hope Mr Sarfo is aware that The AG has filed an appeal against the recnt ruling.

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 10 years ago

  These British jargons sometimes confuse me. Here in the US, the term is more familiarly "standing".
  
  As regards your stated positions, note that they are pregnant with so many issues which I have thoroughly explained here. ...
  read full comment

  These British jargons sometimes confuse me. Here in the US, the term is more familiarly "standing".
  
  As regards your stated positions, note that they are pregnant with so many issues which I have thoroughly explained here. Your sweeping statements therefore don't help much. Merely repeating false conclusions don't make them legally correct.

  reply
• KWAME 10 years ago

  Dr you should have researched Ghana's enforcement laws before coming out with an article as brave as this. you don't even seem to have examined the charges which were put to Woyome. there is absolutely no such exemption on a ...
  read full comment

  Dr you should have researched Ghana's enforcement laws before coming out with an article as brave as this. you don't even seem to have examined the charges which were put to Woyome. there is absolutely no such exemption on a debtor's assets as is prevalent in Texas, even in the U.K. so do you think there will be any in Ghana? A man's home is not even exempt from enforcement in the UK.

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 10 years ago

  I really don't believe people read or understand what I write. Maybe it is my fault but certainly, I raised a strong conditional clause by the use of "IF" and "IF" and "IF"....stating that IF Ghana's laws are akin to that of ...
  read full comment

  I really don't believe people read or understand what I write. Maybe it is my fault but certainly, I raised a strong conditional clause by the use of "IF" and "IF" and "IF"....stating that IF Ghana's laws are akin to that of Texas, then.....
  
  Ghana's judgment enforcement laws are clearly defined in its Code of Civil Procedure, and is pretty much like what pertains here in the US Federal Code of Civil Procedure. I have not found any exemptions of significance in there for judgment debts, but it will be simplistic to assume that there is none.

  reply
• KKO 10 years ago

  Excellent piece, Dr SAS,
  This whole Woyome thing was one of the classic diabolical create, loot and share schemes that this criminal and incompetent NDC government has perpetrated on the people of Ghana since 2009.
  
  The st ...
  read full comment

  Excellent piece, Dr SAS,
  This whole Woyome thing was one of the classic diabolical create, loot and share schemes that this criminal and incompetent NDC government has perpetrated on the people of Ghana since 2009.
  
  The stench goes all the way to the presidency. From Atta Mills' feeble attempts at stopping the payment, through Dr Kwabena Duffuors's shameful protest letter, to Betty Mould Iddrissu and Amidu who authorised the payment. They were all in it.
  
  It is not surprising that Woyome allegedly paid for the construction of the NDC headquarters. In the end, it is the Ghanaian taxpayer that has been made a fool of by these thieving idiots. Even the mode of thier theft is so infantile that one does not need to be a lawyer to realise that it was a calculated attempt to defraud Ghana with no chance whatsoever of ever getting anything back.
  
  Atta Mills got his just reward roaming around '37 at the back of a rickety taxi. They will all get theirs one by one!

  reply