The Akufo-Addo government has said it will ensure that businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome pays all accrued interest on the GHS51.2 million paid him as judgment debt which the Supreme Court has ruled that he got fraudulently and, thus, must refund to the state kitty.

Mr Woyome, in April 2016 resorted to the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce to fight the government over the matter after having paid a first instalment of GHS4 million following an arrangement with the government.

On Wednesday, however, Deputy Attorney General Godfred Yaboah Dame said the ICC case filed by Mr Woyome does not stop the government’s pursuit to recover the money – with interest.

“It is important to note that the case that he’s filed in London does not amount to a stay of execution, it does not amount to a restraint on our efforts to pursue the judgment debt. I’m sure very soon you’ll hear of some good news. We’re pursuing the money together with interest,” Mr Yeboah Dame told Bola Ray on Accra-based Starr FM.

He said C.I.52 “empowers the accrual of interest on judgement debts and we’ll make sure that the interest on it will be fully paid by Alfred Agbesi Woyome.”

Mr Yeboah Dame described the payment of the money to Mr Woyome as a “very sad episode in the history of the nation…”

“Perhaps, if we had an Independent Prosecutor, we would have had better results than we saw,” he added.
It is recalled that the Judgment Debt Commission that probed a plethora of judgment debt payments to individuals and institutions also recommended in its report to the President in 2015 that Mr Agbesi Woyome must be made to refund with interest, the GHC51.2 million that was paid to him "fraudulently" for work he claimed he did for the country ahead of the hosting of the 2008 Africa Cup of Nations in Accra.

"The Commission recommends that in line with the review decision of the Supreme Court, the State must take all necessary steps to re-call the money paid to Alfred Agbesi Woyome from him with interest," a government White Paper on the probe reported the Commission as recommending.

According to the Apau Commission, "there was no basis for the payment of the sum of over GHC 51 million to Alfred Agbesi Woyome."

"This is because he was not entitled to any such payment as the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) rightly found and stated in its interim report," the report added.

"The payment to Alfred Agbesi Woyome was inordinate and at the same time fraudulent. It, therefore, constituted a huge financial loss to the State," it noted.

Below are the recommendations by the Apau Commission on the Woyome saga:

Alfred Agbesi Woyome v. Attorney-General and Another

The Commission reviewed the various documentation submitted to it on this matter and established the following:

i. Either through inadvertence or pure mischief through connivance, both the Chief State Attorney Samuel Nerquaye Tetteh who was charged with the defence of the suit in the trial court, and the trial judge did not scrutinise the processes filed before them with judicious eyes.

If the trial judge, particularly, had done so, he would not have granted the application for default judgment in the first place. The bank accounts of the wife of the Chief State Attorney Mrs. Nerquaye Tetteh, was later found by the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) to have ballooned by the payment into it of the sum of GH 400,000.00 by Alfred Agbesi Woyome after the deal had become successful.

The then Attorney General, in deciding to negotiate with Alfred Agbesi Woyome for the payment of the cedi equivalent of 22,129,501.74 to him as representing 2% of alleged financial engineering costs, was ignorant about the facts of the case Woyome had pleaded in court, but nevertheless went ahead to negotiate and finally ordered for such payment to be made without any scrutiny of his claim and due diligence.

ii. The trial court seriously erred when it granted a default judgment that was procedurally flawed in many aspects. The default judgment was a complete nullity due to the procedural irregularities that completely destroyed its foundation.

• The plaintiff had no mandate under the rules of court to amend his writ of summons twice without leave before pleadings were closed. Order 16 Rule 1(1) gives the plaintiff only one opportunity. He amended his writ of summons twice without leave but the trial court either failed to scrutinise the records before the granting the application or turned a blind eye to it.

• When the plaintiff amended the endorsement on his writ of summons to change completely his cedi claim to a Euro claim with other reliefs, he did not amend his original statement of claim to correspond to the new claim which was completely different from the original claim.

• At the time plaintiff filed the motion for default judgment in default of defence, the defendants had not been served with any Statement of Claim as required under the Rules of Court in support of the amended Writ of Summons to which they could respond by way of a statement of defence.

• On 14th May 2010, just seven (7) days after the service of the amended writ of summons on the 1st defendant, plaintiff caused a motion for judgment in default of defence to be filed. This was contrary to Order 16 Rule 3(2)(b), which provides for a period of fourteen (14) days after the service of an amended statement of claim on the defendant.

iii. Though the parties in the action filed a supposed Terms of Settlement intending it to be adopted as a consent judgment, the State, before the date slated for the adoption of the said terms, had declared its intention not to go by the terms anymore since it had realised it had a defence to the action. That conduct alone served as a caveat to the trial court in treating the terms as Consent Judgment since it had been robbed of its consensual content. The trial court regrettably forced a Consent Judgment on the State.

What the trial court described as a “Consent Judgment” was therefore not a Consent Judgment properly so-called. It was a judgment forced on the State by the trial court, which makes it a complete nullity.

iv. There was no basis for the payment of the sum of over GH 51 million to Alfred Agbesi Woyome. This is because he was not entitled to any such payment as the EOCO rightly found and stated in its interim report.

v. The trial court should have set aside the default judgment it had wrongly entered against the State and allowed the Attorney-General to defend the action as she intimated. The failure of the trial High Court to do so led to the wrong payment of the huge sum of over GH 51 million to Alfred Agbesi Woyome who did not deserve it in the least.

vi. The payment to Alfred Agbesi Woyome was inordinate and at the same time fraudulent. It therefore constituted a huge financial loss to the State.

The Commission recommends that in line with the review decision of the Supreme Court, the State must take all necessary steps to re-call the money paid to Alfred Agbesi Woyome from him with interest.