Amidu struck Out As Defendant In Woyome Case; Awarded Ȼ5,000 Cost

Martin Amidu

Supreme Court has struck out former Attorney General Martin Amidu as a defendant to the suit filed by private legal practitioner David Ametefe seeking interpretation on whether a sole Judge hearing a case before the court, can interpret the Constitution.

The court in its ruling held that David Ametefe despite appropriately invoking the jurisdiction of the court should not have listed the former Attorney General as a defendant.

A cost of 5,000 cedis was awarded against David Ametefe.

He was asking the court to set aside the ruling by Justice Anin Yeboah, who, as a sole Judge held that the former Attorney General must orally examine business man Alfred Woyome.

David Ametefe filed for interpretation of 134 on whether the sole Judge, in this case, Anin Yeboah had the power to interpret the Constitution and enforce it.

The judge had ruled in the highest court that Amidu must orally examine the business man in the controversial case of the 52 million cedis judgement debt scandal which is still raging on after several years.

In Ametefe’s suit he listed the Attorney General as first Defendant and Martin Amidu as the second Defendant.

Martin Amidu on December 5, 2016  filed a preliminary objection saying David Ametefe lacked the capacity to initiate the action.

Secondly he said  Alfred Woyome himself was challenging Justice Anin Yeboah’s ruling and that the plaintiff was hiding behind interpretation to seek something that will in effect be like an appeal to the court’s earlier decision which Woyome is doing already.

The Attorney General, later reacted by pointing out that the defendants listed are not appropriate ie Ag and Amidu.

The issues set out for determination by the court were as follows

1. Has plaintiff invoked jurisdiction of court appropriately?

2. Has he listed the appropriate defendants?

The court held in 1 that he had appropriately done that particularly in view of the fact that the provision in question has never been interpreted.

On 2, the court held that the Attorney General was a proper Defendant since the Constitution says the Attorney General shall be a party to all Civil proceedings.

The court also held that, Martin Amidu was not supposed to be a party despite the fact that it was his case that led the plaintiff to initiate the action. The court explained that Amidu as an individual will not be affected by the interpretation which is a separate matter from the oral examination suit.

Martin Amidu was therefore struck out as Defendant.

The former Attorney General’s preliminary objection was however over ruled with Presiding Judge Sophia Akuffo explaining that David Ametefe had appropriately invoked the jurisdiction of the court and has the capacity as a citizen to seek for interpretation.

Martin Amidu then requested for a cost to be awarded since he had been  needlessly dragged to court. The Court granted 5,000 cedis as cost in his favour.

-Myjoyonline

Comments