Embattled businessman, Alfred Woyome has pleaded with the Supreme Court to suspend the sale of his properties to offset the GHS47.2 million he owes the state.
He has filed an application to stay the execution of an order by the court for the sale of properties.
Instead of his properties to be sold, the businessman has pledged to immediately pay GHS10 million and pay GHS4 million every three months till he completes paying his debt to the state.
On Thursday, 27 June 2019, Ghana’s Supreme Court ordered the sale of some properties discovered by the state to belong to the embattled businessman to defray part of a GHS51.2 million judgement debt paid him about a decade ago, which the country’s apex court has ruled he must refund, since, according to the court, he got it illegally and fraudulently.
The properties are residential facilities located at Kpehe and Trassaco Valley pegged at a minimum of GHS3.4 million and GHS8.3 million respectively.
Mr Woyome collected the GHS51million from the state as judgment debt, following the failure of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) administration to pay his percentage for spearheading a financial engineering crusade from Bank Austria towards the construction of new stadia in the build up to CAN 2008.
Even though he was exonerated from all criminal charges, he is supposed to refund the monies back to the state, since, according to the court, he got it illegally and fraudulently.
After Ghana’s Supreme Court ruling that there was no contract between Woyome and Ghana; and ordered that he should refund the money, r Woyome dragged the state to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Arusha, Tanzania.
Mr Woyome applied to the Continental court arguing that his human rights were being trampled upon by Ghana in relation to the case in which he sued Ghana for abrogating a financial engineering services contract and was paid GHS51.2million.
On Friday, 28 June 2019, Mr Woyome lost his case in the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The Court, presided over by Honourable Lady Justice Tujlani Rose Chizumil, ruled that: “The court finds that the applicant’s rights to nondiscrimination, his right to equality before the law and to equal protection of law as guaranteed under Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter were not violated by the respondent. The court notes that since no violation has been established, the issue of reparation does not arise. Consequently, the applicant’s prayers for reparation is dismissed.”