Editor's Note: Martin A. B. K. Amidu is a Ghanaian politician. He was the Ghanaian Attorney-General and Minister for Justice from January 2011 till January 2012.
Anti-corruption campaigner Martin Amidu has described as “smokescreen” a suit challenging the Supreme Court’s verdict that ordered businessman Alfred Woyome to return 51.2 million cedis to the state.
A resident of Hohoe in the Volta region Abdulai Yusif Fanash Muhammed, sued Martin Amidu, the Attorney General and Mr Woyome demanding the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to rule over the matter.
But Mr. Amidu has in a writ filed at the Supreme Court described the suit as frivolous and vexatious.
Below is Mr. Amidu's full statement against the suit by Mr. Muhammed
AFFIDAVIT OF MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU THE 3RD DEFENDANT/APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION HEREINI, Martin Alamisi Amidu of Plot No 355 North Legon Residential Area, Accra, make oath and say as follows:I am the 3rd Defendant/Applicant and deponent herin.The Plaintiff/Respondent herein on 22nd December 2015 commenced this action invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court against me as the 3rd Defendant claiming the following reliefs:“1. A declaration that the financial engineering claims by Alfred Agbesi Woyome arising out of the tender bid by Vamed Engineering GmbH/Waterville Holdings during the procurement process from June 2005 until its wrongful abrogation in August 2005 is not an international business transaction within the meaning of article 181 of the Constitution, 1992.2 A declaration that on a true and proper interpretation of article 2(1), article 130 and article 181 of the Constitution, 1992 the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to pronounce on the financial engineering claims between a citizen of Ghana and the Government of Ghana which does not fall within the ambit or purview of article 181.3 A declaration that the review decision of the Supreme Court in Suit No. J7/10/2013 intituled (sic) Martin Alamisi Amidu v The Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Limited and Alfred Agbesi Woyome dated 29th July 2014 is wrong in law for excess of jurisdiction as same was obtained in violation of the Constitution, 1992.4 A declaration that the consequential orders in Suit No. J7/10/2013 intituled (sic) Martin Alamisi v The Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Limited and Alfred Agbesi Woyome dated 29th July 2014 given in the review decision by the same Court are wrong in law, null and void ab initio and accordingly ought to be set aside in exercise of the powers of this Honourable Court to set aside its own void judgments.”I was served with the Writ of Summons and the Plaintiff’s Statement of Case on 6th January 2016 and I filed my Statement of 3rd Defendant’s Case on 18th January 2016 in response thereto.A casual reading of the four reliefs endorsed on the Plaintiff/Respondent’s Writ of Summons purporting to invoke the original jurisdiction of this Court leaves one in no doubt that none of those reliefs raises any issue of interpretation or enforcement of the Constitution to cloth the Plaintiff/Respondent in this action with any locus standi to commence this action under Articles 2(1), and 130 of the 1992 Constitution – See the analogical reasoning and binding force of this Court’s ruling in Adjei-Ampofo v Attorney-General [2003-2004] SCGLR 1.The 1st relief endorsed on the Plaintiff/Respondent’s Writ of Summons is in substance and in form seeking an advisory opinion of this Court and also to reargue an issue which was in dispute between the then Plaintiff ( now the 3rd Defendant/Applicant herein) and the then 3rd Defendant (Alfred Agbesi Woyome referred to in the endorsement and now the 2nd Defendant herein) before the ordinary bench of this Court in the case of Amidu (No 1) v Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Ltd & Woyome (No 1) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 112 and which was conclusively determined in the review ruling of this Court in Amidu (No 3) v Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Ltd & Woyome (No 2) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 606.The reference in the 1st relief endorsed on the Plaintiff/Respondent’s Writ of Summons to Alfred Agbesi Woyome without indicating that the said Afred Agbesi Woyome is the same person as the 2nd Defendant herein shows that in substance and in form this action of the Plaintiff/Respondent is only a camouflage and intended to give the 1st Defendant, and particularly, the 2nd Defendant herein another opportunity to reopen and reargue the review decision of this Court in Amidu (No 3) (supra) the subject matter of the Plaintiff/Respondent’s 3rd and 4th reliefs endorsed on his Writ of Summons as quoted supra.The 2nd relief endorsed on the Plaintiff/Respondent’s Writ is also in substance and in form asking not for interpretation and/ or enforcement of the 1992 Constitution as mandated under Articles 2 and 130 thereof but for an advisory opinion of this Court on the extent of its jurisdiction on Article 181of the Constitution as the reliefs 6, 7, 10, 13 and 14 claimed, endorsed on the Writ, and quoted by the Court in Amidu (No 1) (supra) and Amidu (3) (supra) show that the restitutionary claims on the international business or economic transaction were made by the 2nd Defendant herein (then as the 3rd Defendant), a Ghanaian citizen, jointly with Austro-Invest Management Ltd (a foreign registered and resident company subsequently liquidated abroad on 26 July 2011).The pith of the plaintiff/Respondent’s action is the 3rd relief endorsed on the Writ of Summons invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court and challenging the jurisdiction of this Court for reviewing its own decision in Amidu (No 3) (supra) as though this Court did not consider the question of its jurisdiction before admitting, deciding and granting the review application. The 3rd relief endorsed on the Writ of Summons states that:“3. A declaration that the review decision of the Supreme Court in Suit No.J7/10/2013 instituled (sic) Martin Alamisi Amidu v The Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Limited and Alfred Agbesi Woyome dated 29th July 2014 is wrong in law for excess of jurisdiction as same was obtained in violation of the Constitution, 1992.” (Emphasis supplied).It is clear from the foregoing that the Plaintiff/Respondent does not seek an interpretation or enforcement of any provision of the Constitution pursuant to Article 2(1)(b) and 130 thereof but as stated in the 4th relief endorsed on the Writ, for the simple and erroneous reason that the consequential orders “…dated 29th July 2014 given in the review decision by the same court are wrong in law, null and void ab initio and accordingly ought to be set aside in the exercise of the powers of this Honourable Court to set aside its own void judgments.” (Emphasis supplied).I am of the firm belief that the Plaintiff/Respondent’s Writ of Summons and Statement of Case disclose no locus standi or cause of action vested in him against me or any of the defendants herein under the original jurisdiction of this Court.The averments contained in the Plaintiff/Respondent’s Statement of Case provide no basis for invoking the original jurisdiction of this Court.Commonsense should have warned the Plaintiff/Respondent that an ordinary bench of this court hearing his Writ of Summons and Statement of Case will have no jurisdiction to declare the ruling of the review bench in Amidu (No 3) v Attorney General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Ltd & Woyome (No 2) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 606 null and void or in any other manner attempt to review same under the smokescreen of exercising any original jurisdiction in this action.The Plaintiff/Respondent was warned or ought to have been warned by this Court’s decision in Okudzeto Ablakwa (No 3) & Another v Attorney-General & Obetsebi-Lamptey (No 3) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 16 at page 21 in which this Court decided that while it may depart from its own previous decision in terms of Article 129(3) of the Constitution, until it had done so it would “be incorrect to argue that the Supreme Court is in error in following its own previous and unchallenged decision” and an applicant would face “a difficulty in persuading this court that there was fundamental error in the judgment…., when the alleged error is based on the court following its own previous judgment” such as Hanna Assi (No 2) v Gihoc Refrigeration & Household Products Ltd (No 2) [2007-2008] SCGLR 16 in Amidu (No 3.The Plaintiff/Respondent knew that the 2nd Defendant and any other interest for whose benefit he purported to have initiated this incompetent action did not and could not have applied for a review of this Court’s binding review ruling in Amidu (No 3) almost one and half years after the decision because they were cognizant of the fact that there was no right under the Constitution to have same reviewed or directly varied by any other Court under the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16) for any reason whatsoever and that cannot be circumvented by this incompetent action of the Plaintiff/Respondent.I am of the sincere belief from the conduct of the 1st and the 2nd Defendants, in unconstitutionally creating the judgment debt giving rise to and determined in Amidu (No 3) and the subsequent conduct, actions and public pronouncements of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, particularly since the commencement of this action, that the Plaintiff/Applicant who resides in Hohoe in the Volta Region with his firm of lawyers in Kumasi is just a smokescreen behind whom the 1st and 2nd Defendants together with other interests (responsible for a mysterious document of over 400 pages referred to and quoted variously in the Statement of Case of the Plaintiff/Respondent as “the Attachment” without being exhibited) are deliberately seeking to have a second bite at the cherry, to continue to delay, and justify the non-execution and payment of the judgment debt ordered by this Court in Amidu (No 3) more than one and half years ago.The commencement of this incompetent action by the Plaintiff/Respondent on 22 December 2015 provided the 1st Defendant through His Excellency President John Dramani Mahama the shameless cover behind which to tell the public (for whose benefit the judgment debt in Amidu (No 3) (supra) was given and ordered on 29 July 2014 inures) on 12 January 2016 at a media encounter broadcast to the whole world that the 1st Defendant was unable to execute the ruling and orders in the said Amidu (No 3) because of this pending action: the 2nd Defendant on his part used it as a cover to purport to apply to this Court for a suspension of the ruling and orders in Amidu (No 3) (supra) pending the hearing and disposal of this incompetent action as a means of buying time to prevent the 3rd Defendant/Applicant from bringing any action against him for disobedience to the orders of this Court under Article 2 of the 1992 Constitution.I believe that the Plaintiff/Respondent’s Writ and Statement of Case are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of this Court for lack of locus standi and/or any cause of action vested in the Plaintiff/Respondent against the 3rd Defendant/Applicant or any of the Defendants pursuant to Articles 2(1)(b) and 130(1)(a), and Rule 45 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16) to warrant the invocation of the original jurisdiction of this Court.It is my firm conviction that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff/Respondent’s Writ and Statement of Case or in any other manner declare the binding decision of this Court in Amidu (No 3) v Attorney-General, Waterville Holding (BVI) Ltd & Woyome (No 2) [2013-2014] 1 SCGLR 606 null and void for lack of or excess of jurisdiction.In addition to the foregoing I have raised preliminary legal objections in my said Statement of the 3rd Defendant’s Case filed in this Court which also contains detailed submissions on law on the preliminary legal objections upon which I intend to rely at the hearing of this application.I accordingly pray this Court to dismiss the Plaintiff/Respondent’s Writ and Statement of Case in limine with punitive costs in favour of the 3rd Defendant/Applicant on the foregoing grounds and also on the ground that this action is without any merit whatsoever under the 1992 Constitution and Rule 45 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (CI 16).WHEREFORE I swear to this affidavit in in support of my application raising preliminary legal objection to the jurisdiction of this Court in this action.SWORN at Accra this ……day of January, 2016 …………………………….(DEPONENT)BEFORE MECOMMISSIONER FOR OATHS
Disclaimer: This article expresses the author’s opinion only. The views and opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Yen.com.gh or its editors.