The first is asking the court not to grant Mr. Martin Alamisi Amidu leave to examine him orally on oath this morning.
His second affidavit also calls for a review of the ruling of Mr. Justice Anin Yeboah on November 16, which ordered him (Mr. Woyome) to avail himself for the former Attorney-General and Minister of Justice to examine him orally on oath.
“That, dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the ruling dated 16th November, 2016 by His Lordship Anin Yeboah, I filed a motion on Notice with affidavit in support on 23rd November, 2016 pursuant to Article 134 (b) of the 1992 Constitution seeking the said order to be discharged or reversed.
“That in the circumstances and in the interest of fairness and justice I pray that the proceedings in respect of the order in the ruling of His Lordship Anin Yeboah JSC for the plaintiff/1st Respondent herein to orally examine me be stayed until my application pursuant to article 134 (b) of the 1992 Constitution seeking to discharge or reverse the Ruling of His Lordship Anin Yeboah JSC dated 16th November, 2016 be determined.”
With regard to the Review Affidavit, which is slated for hearing on Thursday, December 6, Mr. Woyome said that under Article 134 of the Constitution, a Justice of the Supreme Court sitting as a single judge or justice had no jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution.
“That I am further informed and verily believe same to be true that the limited prayer of the Plaintiff/applicant in his application dated 4th November, 2016, was for leave to examine me orally, and did not include an order for execution of a judgement as ordered by His Lordship Anin Yeboah JSC in his ruling dated 16th November, 2016, and to that extent the learned Justice exceeded his limited jurisdiction when he provided for the Plaintiff/Applicant therein, reliefs that he never sought.”
“That I am informed and verily believe same to be true that sitting as a singly Justice, His Lordship Anin Yeboah is vested with a limited jurisdiction and has no jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution, grant reliefs not sought by the applicant and to depart from or fail to apply binding decisions rendered by panels of the Supreme Court with full jurisdiction and which held to the effect that where an enactment had prescribed a special procedure by which something was to be done, it was that procedure alone that was to be followed.”
“That in the circumstances, the order granting the 1st respondent leave to examine me and to execute the judgement sins against articles 2, 88, 130 and 134 of the Constitution and same ought to be discharged or reversed.”
According to Mr. Woyome, the framers of the 1992 Constitution did not intend that anyone may invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and seek to enforce orders made by that court and directed at a specific person who is willing to and is already actively obeying the orders of the court.
He has placed emphasis on the fact that the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice had already taken concrete steps to enforce the orders of the court and retrieved part of the judgement debt.
“And by the terms of Article 88 of the constitution and the State Proceedings Act, 1998 (Act 555) the only person with the power and authority to enforce an order in favour of the state is the attorney-General,” he stated in his affidavit.
By Castro Zangina-Tong