FULL TEXT: Affidavit of Attorney-General in opposition to Martin Amidu

Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong
Minister of Justice and Attorney-General, Mrs. Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong

Below is the full text of an affidavit filed by the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong in opposition to Martin Amidu’s application to orally examine Alfred Agbesi Woyome. In July 2014, Martin Amidu won a supreme court case in which he prayed to court to compel Woyome to refund 51.2 million cedis fraudulently paid to him as judgment debt. His recent application to orally examine Woyome was granted today (16th November). Before the ruling today, the Attorney-General, who had filed to examine Woyome but discontinued the case, opposed Martin Amidu’s application. Find below her affidavit.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE

ACCRA – AD 2016

 

SUIT NO: J8/9/2017

MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU                –        PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

PLOT 355, NORTH LEGON

RESIDENTIAL AREA, ACCRA 

 

AND

 

  1. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL      – 1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

     MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

ACCRA

 

  1. WATERVILLE HOLDINGS (BVI) LTD.   – 2ND DEFENDANT
  2. O. BOX 3444

     ROAD TOWN

TORTOLA

 

 

  1. ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME     – 3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/

     HOUSE NO 16B                                       JUDGMENT/DEBTOR

     6TH STREET TESANO – ACCRA

 

AFFIDAVIT OF MARIETTA BREW APPIAH-OPONG IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT’S AFFIDAVIT

I, MARIETTA BREW APPIAH-OPONG of the Attorney General’s Department, Ministries-Accra do make oath and say as follows:

  • That I am the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and the deponent hereto. I have held this position since the 14th of February 2013.
  • That I have been served with the Motion on Notice for Leave to Examine the 3rd Defendant/Respondent/Judgment Debtor (hereinafter referred to as “the 3rd Defendant”) and the Affidavit in Support filed on 4th November 2016 and oppose same.
  • That paragraphs 2 and 3 of the affidavit in support of the application are admitted.
  • That paragraphs 5 to 7 of the affidavit in support are denied and the Plaintiff will be put to strict proof. The 1st Defendant/Judgment Creditor, prior to the application for leave to examine the 3rd Respondent, had taken several steps to enforce the orders of the Court.
  • That on 8th January 2015 1st Defendant/Judgment Creditor filed a Writ of Fifa (renewed on 16th January 2016) and attached the following properties of the 3rd Respondent in execution of judgment (the Writ of Fifa is attached and marked as Exhibits “AG1” and “AG1A“).
  1. One residential property at Tesano House No 16B, 6th Street Tesano
  2. One residential property at Kpehe
  3. Two residential properties at Trassaco, Accra
  4. A quarry at Maafi, Volta Region
  5. Vehicles and equipment
  • That Interpleaders have been filed by UT Bank in respect of the two residential properties situate at Trassaco and one residential property situate at Kpehe, while Anator Holding Company Limited has also filed an interpleader in respect of the quarry at Maafi in the Volta Region. (Copies of the claims are attached and marked as Exhibit “AG2” Series)
  • On the 6th of April, 2016 the 1st Defendant/Respondent initiated Garnishee proceedings to issue against the Managers of ADB Bank, Uni Bank (Ghana) Limited and UT Bank (Garnishee Nisi Order is attached and marked as Exhibit “AG3”).
  • That the garnishee yielded the following amounts; GHS966.58, GHS29,515.95, GHS1,008.70, US$98.17, US$32,779.68, US$223.08 and Euros 1,226.72, which have since been paid into the Bank Account of 1st Defendant/Respondent at the Bank of Ghana. (Copies of evidence of monies into the Ministry of Justice Account are attached and marked as Exhibit “AG4” Series)
  • That I do not admit paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of the application and will put the Plaintiff/Applicant to strict proof.
  • That paragraph 10 of the affidavit in support is denied and Plaintiff/Applicant will be put to strict proof. Neither I nor my former law firm ever acted for the 3rd My former law firm always acted against the 3rd Defendant and never on his behalf. The depositions contained in paragraph 10 of the affidavit of Plaintiff/Applicant are scandalous, offensive, malicious and deliberate falsehood by the Plaintiff/Applicant. To the knowledge of the Plaintiff, neither myself nor any member of my former firm had ever acted for and on behalf of the 3rd Defendant in any capacity or in any suit. In all, my former firm acted in three suits involving 3rd Defendant. The suits are as follows:
  1. AUSTRO-INVEST MANAGEMENT LTD VERSUS ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME – SUIT NO. AC96/2012 – Represented the Plaintiff
  1. ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME VERSUS RAYMOND ARCHER – SUIT NO. MISC/32/2011 – Represented the Defendant
  1. RAY SMITH VERSUS ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME – SUIT NO. AC527/2011 – Represented the Plaintiff
  • That in all the cases referred to in the paragraph above my former partner in the law firm personally handled the cases against 3rd
  • In further denial of paragraph 10 of the affidavit in support I say that the staff at the Attorney-General’s Department and I have at all material times acted professionally and with dispatch in relation to this case.
  • That paragraph 11 of the affidavit in support is admitted. In further response, I state that the staff of the Attorney General’s Department at all material times acted upon the instructions of the 1st Defendant/Judgment Creditor, the Attorney- General.
  • That paragraphs 12 and 13 of the affidavit in support are denied and the Plaintiff/Applicant is put to strict proof. The depositions contained therein are scandalous, offensive, malicious and deliberate falsehood by the Plaintiff/Applicant. Furthermore, the President never suggested, directed or instructed me to discontinue the request of this office to orally examine the judgment debtor.
  • That in further response to paragraphs 12 and 13 I state that the only reason this office has discontinued its request to orally examine the 3rd Defendant is because of a request made by the 3rd Defendant to pay the judgment debt by instalments. Please find attached and marked as Exhibit “AG5” a letter dated the 27th of October 2016.
  • That in response to paragraph 14 I state that the position stated by the Plaintiff/Applicant is not the correct position of law.
  • That on the 7th day of November 2016, at my request, a meeting was held in my office with the 3rd Defendant in the presence of staff of my office to discuss the schedule of payments. The invitation to the 3rd Defendant is attached and marked as Exhibit “AG6”.
  • That this meeting was attended by the 3rd Defendant and his Lawyer, Mr. Ken Anku, the Acting Solicitor General, Mrs. Helen Ziwu and the Acting Director of the Environment, Land and Natural Resources Division, Mrs. Dorothy Afriyie Ansah. At this meeting the 3rd Respondent made a payment of Four Million Ghana Cedis (GHC4,000,000.00). Attached and marked as Exhibits “AG7” and “AG7A” are photocopies of the cheque issued by the 3rd Defendant and the receipt issued to him, respectively.
  • That on the 8th of November, 2016 the 1st Defendant/Judgment Creditor, received a letter from the 3rd Defendant proposing to pay the outstanding sum by quarterly instalments of Five Million Ghana Cedis (GHC5,000,000.00) commencing 1st April 2017. Attached and marked as Exhibit “AG8” is the letter.
  • That in response to paragraphs 15, 17 and 18, I state that it is arguable whether or not the Plaintiff/Applicant has a right to examine the 3rd The order to enforce the Judgment was directed at the 1st Defendant and not the Plaintiff/Applicant. Even if the Plaintiff/Applicant did have this right, the facts relied on by the Plaintiff/Applicant to found this application are scandalous, offensive, malicious and deliberate falsehood and cannot be the basis for the grant of his application.
  • That I deny paragraph 16 and, in further response, I state that it is scandalous, offensive, malicious and deliberate falsehood by the Plaintiff/Applicant to state that there is collusion between the 3rd Defendant/Respondent/Judgment Debtor and I to frustrate the execution of the judgment debt. It is also scandalous, offensive, malicious and deliberate falsehood by Plaintiff/Applicant to state that in pursuing the enforcement of the judgment debt, my conduct has been “biased and a conflicted partisan politician”.
  • In response to paragraph 19, I admit that a report by the Economic and Organised Crime Office stated that Mrs. Gifty Nerquaye Tetteh, wife of Mr. Samuel Nerquaye Tetteh had received a sum of GHC400,000.00 from the 3rd However, it is scandalous, offensive, malicious and deliberate falsehood by the Plaintiff/Applicant to state that this report has been conveniently shelved and the said Mr. Samuel Nerquaye Tetteh quietly posted to Wa in the Upper West Region. On the 11th day of December 2015 a Disciplinary Committee chaired by Justice Mrs. Rose Owusu (a retired Supreme Court Judge) was inaugurated by the Legal Service Board in accordance with the Legal Service Regulations, 2014 (L.I. 2210) to conduct a disciplinary enquiry into the matter involving Mr. Samuel Nerquaye Tetteh among other matters referred to the Committee. Attached and marked as Exhibit “AG9” is the situational report of the Committee. The Committee has concluded its enquiry on the 3rd of October 2016 and will submit a report soon. The Office of the Attorney-General will make the findings of the Committee public as soon as it is received.
  • That the Plaintiff/Applicant ought to know that any deliberate deception of this Honourable Court on the part of a lawyer is professional misconduct by the rules of the Legal Profession. Furthermore, the Plaintiff/Applicant contrary to the Rules of Court deposes to the scandalous, offensive, malicious and deliberate falsehood without providing the sources of his information or belief. At the hearing of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application I shall apply to the court to have these offending matters struck out of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s affidavit, and that he should be ordered to apologise for making these false allegations.
  • That I assure this Honourable Court that the staff of the Attorney-General’s Department and I have every intention of taking all steps necessary to recover sums adjudged to be repaid to the State and to defend the State in respect of all spurious claims made against the State.
  • Wherefore I swear to this affidavit.
READ  Martin Amidu to Anas: "Anticorruption journalist cannot be a government agent under any excuse!"

SWORN IN ACCRA                                         ………………………

THIS ………… NOVEMBER, 2016                         DEPONENT

 

BEFORE ME

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS

 THE REGISTRAR

SUPREME COURT

SUPREME COURT BUILDING

ACCRA

 

 

 

AND FOR SERVICE ON THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT, HON. MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU, PLOT 355, NORTH LEGON, RESIDENTIAL AREA, ACCRA

 

AND MR. ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR, HOUSE NO   16B, 6TH STREET TESANO – ACCRA OR HIS SOLICITOR, KEN ANKU, ANKU & ANKU @ LAW, H/NO. F149/2 AWULEKPAKPA STREET, NEAR RLG, OSU, ACCRA

Share This Now