Attorney General Gloria Akuffo, has said legal challenges prevented the government of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo from retrieving the GH¢51.2 million judgement debt paid to Alfred Agbesi Woyome, the Ghanaian businessman whose name has gained currency in the country.
Woyome has finally refunded the money to the state. He has paid ¢4.6 million of the debt owed the state.
The Controller and Accountant General, Eugene Ofosuhene revealed that “Monies collected or recovered from the garnisheed order ¢167,565.62 and monies paid as a result of settlement is ¢4.5 million so the two sum up to the ¢4.667.566.62 million.”
He said “We have a letter from the AG’s office to support the payment. The letter dated 8th of March 2018 was written to the Auditor General. And paragraph four says: kindly find below the computation of payments made by the Mr. Woyome based on the terms of settlement and the proceeds from the garnishee. Monies collected or recovered from the garnishee order GHc167, 565.62 and monies paid as a result of settlement, GHc4.5 million. So the two sum up to the GHc4, 667,566.62.”
Gloria Akuffo speaking at the back of the money he has paid back said the government will pursue him to pay back the rest.
She explained that “The court has made a decision that he is liable to pay certain money that belong to the state, if he is existing, natural justice requires that he be heard which is what is going on. I can only say that we’re not relenting in our effort to retrieve the money for the state and I’m hopeful that the time will come, even legal hurdles have their end.”
The Supreme court ordered Woyome to pay back to the State after a review of the court’s own earlier decision sought by former Attorney General and Special Prosecutor Martin Amidu who insisted that Woyome, like Waterville and Isofoton, had no valid contract to be paid any amount by the state in judgement debt.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Amidu and directed Isofoton and Waterville to pay back monies paid them in judgement debt.
It said the contracts which formed the basis for the claims by the two companies did not exist in law for want of Parliamentary ratification as required by law.
Source:Pulsegh
