Is Woyome Ruling a Warning on Proportional Representation?

Read Comments Comments (17)

• Annorwuo 11 years ago

  Power to appoint members of this so-called independent appointments commission? What would be the term of office for members of this body?
  And have we forgotten about the zeal with which certain individuals or groups have,an ...
  read full comment

  Power to appoint members of this so-called independent appointments commission? What would be the term of office for members of this body?
  And have we forgotten about the zeal with which certain individuals or groups have,and continue to hound the EC Chair,Dr. Afari Gyan,who is eminently qualified for his job, for plainly spurious reasons?
  Look, unless we as a society,decide to eschew the current naked self-interest,that is returning to our traditional communal concepts of being each other`s keeper;building consensus on the basis of tolerance;being guided by truth, honesty,justice and fair play in all our interactions,this nation is doomed!
  Given our present socio-economic situation,a loose political arrangement such as corporatism,that recognizes all interest groups, would
  be a much better option, than this "dangerous" idea of introducing gridlock or stalemate into our governance system!

  reply
• Bonsu 11 years ago

  The hullabaloo surrounding the judgement of the sc and its effect on our constitution and judicial system is what must be a bother to Kofi and not opinions on the merit of proportional representation.
  
  According to the Cou ...
  read full comment

  The hullabaloo surrounding the judgement of the sc and its effect on our constitution and judicial system is what must be a bother to Kofi and not opinions on the merit of proportional representation.
  
  According to the Court.the contracts upon which Woyome made and received the claim was in contravention of Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which requires such contracts to be scrutinized and approved by Parliament. Since the contract did not go before parliament the contract became invalid and there null and void.
  
  The reasoning behind the ruling and its repercussion is what must be worrying and not suggestion about PR.The implication of the ruling is that notwithstanding the merits of a contract once there is a defect somewhere the contract automatically becomes invalid and therefore null and void. Equity demands that such defects can be cured either by ordering completion of the process or take the part performance of the contract into consideration in the final decision.
  
  This is a very dangerous path of reasoning because of principal agent principle where the acts of the authorized agent is held binding on the principal. Under a memorandum of understanding work commence and the duty to formalize the process was the business of the government and not the contractor especially when it has been declared a foreign contract.
  
  The whole judgement seem like the sc was under populist presume and therefore were careless in their ruling.This is the bother because of its repercussion on our judicial system and not suggestion on PR.

  reply
• Jojo Hammond, New Jersey 11 years ago

  First, am I the only one who has noticed that political agitations and talks like power sharing reach fever pitch whenever the NPP is out of power? All these pro-NPP advocates for the abolition of the so-called "Winner takes ...
  read full comment

  First, am I the only one who has noticed that political agitations and talks like power sharing reach fever pitch whenever the NPP is out of power? All these pro-NPP advocates for the abolition of the so-called "Winner takes all" political arrangement will disappear should the NPP come to power. Mark my words !!!.
  
  Second, Why didn't the SC wait for the case at the lower court to be completed before its (SC's) ruling? Or why did the SC not order the lower court to stop proceedings after it (SC) ruled as it did?
  
  Here in the USA cases are heard by the SC only after such cases have made their way through the lower courts. I know Ghana is not the USA but I was confused by the situation. Can someone explain this to me? I am not against the ruling just a clarification as to the process. Is it a sign that the SC does not trust the lower courts' processes, especially the unnecessary delays?

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 11 years ago

  A very wise observation.
  I personally think that any talk of power-sharing is self-serving and grounded in hypocrisy and has nothing to do with good governance.
  Such a system will increase instability within the country.

  A very wise observation.
  I personally think that any talk of power-sharing is self-serving and grounded in hypocrisy and has nothing to do with good governance.
  Such a system will increase instability within the country.

  reply
• NPPist 11 years ago

  There was talk about power sharing in Ghana when Kufour was president. For the record, NPP is not supporting power sharing, this does not solve our problems.

  There was talk about power sharing in Ghana when Kufour was president. For the record, NPP is not supporting power sharing, this does not solve our problems.

  reply
• Mr. Figure-Out 11 years ago

  Let's weight the merits and demerits and move on with what would be in the collective interest of all. I think the proponents of this scheme are largely concerned with the much polarized environment that has been brought to p ...
  read full comment

  Let's weight the merits and demerits and move on with what would be in the collective interest of all. I think the proponents of this scheme are largely concerned with the much polarized environment that has been brought to play by the winner takes all policy. Though the NPP could not force this policy on ghanaians, it pursued a policy which show its commitment to same by introducing what it termed as the 'all inclusive government" which embraces the likes of Kwesi Ndoom, malam Issah, Freddie Blay, all from the Nkrumaist,and Alhaji Boniface of the NDC into their fold. Our politicians know the damage being done to the nation by this winner takes all thing but for greed and want of power, they ignore the harbinger, the tickling time bomb of civil infraction that may erupt due to their insensitivity to the foregoing discussion. We need to weight in both sides, interrogate thoroughly, without any political considerations, the merits and demerits of this proposal and move on with what would be the best for Ghanaians.

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 11 years ago

  Very good point....
  Only that I would like to have a copy of the whole ruling before commenting on it. But assuming that the ruling were materially based on this spurious assumption that the contract did not pass parliamenta ...
  read full comment

  Very good point....
  Only that I would like to have a copy of the whole ruling before commenting on it. But assuming that the ruling were materially based on this spurious assumption that the contract did not pass parliamentary muster, your point would be very incisive. Couple that with the legal principle that a contract is always construed against the drafter, and you have a SC ruling without a solid legal ground.

  reply
• Bonsu 11 years ago

  MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU
  
  V.
  
  1. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 2. WATERVILLE HOLDINGS (BVI) LIMITED 3. ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME
  
  By a unanimous decision of this court, the application for review succeeds and is hereby granted. Consequen ...
  read full comment

  MARTIN ALAMISI AMIDU
  
  V.
  
  1. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 2. WATERVILLE HOLDINGS (BVI) LIMITED 3. ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME
  
  By a unanimous decision of this court, the application for review succeeds and is hereby granted. Consequently, the Applicant is entitled to have the decision of the ordinary bench reviewed in the following terms:
  
  Reliefs 6, 10, 13 and 14 are hereby granted. Reliefs 6 and 7 are subsumed in the main ruling of the court dated 14th June 2014. We therefore make the following declarations and order:
  
  1. A Declaration that the conduct of the then Attorney-General, the 1st Defendant/Respondent in this case, in paying or ordering the payment by the Republic of Ghana of the claims of the 3rd Defendant/Respondent [Woyome] and Austro-Invest, premised upon the purported foreign/international financial engineering agreement arising out of the agreements dated 26th April 2006 and other international business agreements with the Government of Ghana, which were never laid before Parliament for approval, is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 181(5) of the Constitution, 1992, in terms of the interpretation already rendered by the ordinary bench, and are accordingly declared null, void and without effect whatsoever.
  
  2. A declaration that the High Court which purported to assume, and assumed, jurisdiction in the action commenced by the 3rd Respondent [Woyome] (as plaintiff) on 10th April 2010 in suit No. RPC/153/10 against the 1st Respondent, claiming damages for breach of contract in an international business transaction contrary to Article 181(5) of the Constitution, 1992, and entering judgment in default of defence against the 1st Respondent, therein the 1st Defendant, acted without jurisdiction; consequently those proceedings and others consequent upon the said proceedings and orders of the High Court are hereby declared null, void and without effect whatsoever.
  
  3. A declaration that the conduct of the 3rd Respondent [Woyome], therein Plaintiff jointly with Austro-Invest Management Limited in making claims upon and including the issuance of a Writ of Summons with the support of 2nd defendant therein and receiving payments premised upon the two inoperative agreements dated 26th April 2006 between the 2nd defendant and the Government of Ghana, which are international business or economic transactions which had not been laid and approved by Parliament, is inconsistent with and in contravention of Article 181(5) of the Constitution.
  
  4. An order directed at the 3rd Respondent herein [Woyome] to refund to the Republic of Ghana, all sums of money paid to him upon or as a result of the unconstitutional conduct of the 1st Respondent therein 1st defendant, in purported pursuance of the said inoperative agreements dated 26th April 2006.
  
  We make no orders relative to costs in these proceedings.
  
  29/7/2014

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 11 years ago

  Bonsu, your assumption that the agreement/s or contract/s were not approved by Parliament and therefore breach of the constitution, the agremment/s were null and void is not accurate. Those who use that argument are only atte ...
  read full comment

  Bonsu, your assumption that the agreement/s or contract/s were not approved by Parliament and therefore breach of the constitution, the agremment/s were null and void is not accurate. Those who use that argument are only attempting to blame the former Kufuor administration and to justify criminal acts. These are the facts:
  
  The then government had arrangement or a memorandum of understanding with Waterville and Isofoton to undertake some projects as part of the preparations for the Africa Cup. Among the conditions for the agreement/s coming into effect was a requirement of approval by Parliament. During the course of the negotiations, it became clear to the then government that Waterville and Isofoton were facing difficulties with the work and could delay the completion of the stadia for the African Cup and embarrass Ghana. So the government decided not to go ahead with the arrangement/s but instead sourced different contractors capable of delivering the projects on time(the Chinese). As a result, the government did not take the agreement/s with Waterville and Isofoton to Parliament for approval so the agreement/s or contracts never come into effect. Waterville and Isofoton were also paid for the work done so far. Instead, the Chinese contract/agreement was the one that was taken to Parliament for approval.
  
  From the above, both Waterville and Isofoton did not have locus standi to sue the government of Ghana for any damages, let alone be given judgement debt payments. There were no agreements to have been breached.
  
  As far as Woyome was concerned, he never had a contract whatsoever with the government of Ghana. Rather, he was engaged by Waterville to undertake some of the work on their behalf had the contract/agreement between Waterville and government of Ghana been ratified. Woyome was therefore a sub-contractor of Waterwille and at best he could only sue Waterville and not government of Ghana. That is why the SC used the words "purported agreement". There was none and Woyome himself said in an interview on Peace FM that he did not have a contract with government of Ghana.
  
  The documentary evidence confirming the above were all available but for political expediency the politicians decided to ignore them and for selfish interests the senior civil servants also ignored them and recommended that Waterville, Isofoton and Woyome had legitimate claims and so should be paid.
  
  That is what happened and the whole episode was simply fraud and crime perpetrated on the people of Ghana
  
  Kwaku Baako has copies of all the necessary documents.

  reply
• Bonsu 11 years ago

  Kofi you are probably confused as to why the sc made this ruling.Before the court was the argument that there was a procedural defect or procedural impropriety which renders the contract invalid because it did not go throug ...
  read full comment

  Kofi you are probably confused as to why the sc made this ruling.Before the court was the argument that there was a procedural defect or procedural impropriety which renders the contract invalid because it did not go through parliamentary scrutiny and approval and they agreed.
  
  I think the requirement of parliamentary due process is the responsibility of government and not parties to government contract.To use this technicality to come to the conclusion they did is an affront to natural justice and the notion of fairness.This a case where equitable remedies could have been applied to resolve the issue.
  
  The procedural defect as interpreted by the sc goes against the conventional principle that a procedural statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished.
  
  I personally don't care about Woyome but we must do the right thing.As for your reference to Kweku Baako,if that is your source of evidence then your source is very poor.

  reply
• Bonsu 11 years ago

  This is your friend S K Asare's opinion under his usual moniker which was just brought to my attention.
  
  Author: Kwaku Azar (registered user)
  Date: 07-31-2014 07:10
  
  Although it is easy to agree with the Supreme Court ...
  read full comment

  This is your friend S K Asare's opinion under his usual moniker which was just brought to my attention.
  
  Author: Kwaku Azar (registered user)
  Date: 07-31-2014 07:10
  
  Although it is easy to agree with the Supreme Court that Woyome should refund the loot, it is more difficult to agree with the Court's reasoning.
  
  According to the Court, the contracts upon which Woyome made and received the claim was in contravention to Article 181 (5) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which requires such contracts to be laid before and approved by Parliament.
  
  In effect, this holding implies that a plaintiff who performs on a contract that was supposed to be, but not, laid before Parliament is out of luck even if he performs his side of the bargain.
  
  The Supreme Court's view is barbaric and seems to have missed the revolution in contract law where Courts have fashioned equitable remedies to create quasi (implied-in-law) contracts to avoid unjust enrichment to a defendant, such as Ghana, that may have benefitted from the plaintiff's work, even though no contract was formed.
  
  The better reasoning for the Supreme Court should have been that the payment received by Woyome was procured through fraudulent means.
  
  That is, the problem in Woyome's case is not simply that the agreement was not laid before and approved by Parliament. That is not a fatal defect and can be cured by creating a quasi contract. The problem is that Woyome provided no services at all and obtained the payments out of a criminal enterprise hatched by AG Mould, Deputy AG Oduro, and other persons at the then Castle.
  
  Is the Court's View on Contracts Equitable?
  
  Da Yie!

  reply
• Dr. SAS, Attorney at Law 11 years ago

  Good job, Bro. Bonsu.
  Prof. Asare is on point.
  The court could also have invoked the principle of quantum meruit which is also an equitable relief akin to this notion of "unjust enrichment".
  Quantum meruit is a Latin phras ...
  read full comment

  Good job, Bro. Bonsu.
  Prof. Asare is on point.
  The court could also have invoked the principle of quantum meruit which is also an equitable relief akin to this notion of "unjust enrichment".
  Quantum meruit is a Latin phrase meaning "what one has earned". In the context of contract law, it means something along the lines of "reasonable value of services".
  By application of this principle, the SC would have reached a more defensible opinion against Woyome. As the situation stands, the court has opened itself up to ridicule, much in line with many of its lazy reasoning.

  reply
• Bonsu 11 years ago

  Nice reflections Dr SAS,
  Azar recognized the danger in the sc reasoning and its effects generally and his analysis on it was on point however he wanted the sc to have thrown in extraneous issues which were not before it.
  
  ...
  read full comment

  Nice reflections Dr SAS,
  Azar recognized the danger in the sc reasoning and its effects generally and his analysis on it was on point however he wanted the sc to have thrown in extraneous issues which were not before it.
  
  The right approach like you said would have been to invoke the principle of quantum meruit.That would have met the equitable standard

  reply
• Kofi Ata, Cambridge, UK 11 years ago

  I am also waiting for the SC written decision because it appears the SC assumed that Woyome has a contract with the government of Ghana, which contract the government of Ghana failed to seek parliamentary approval. That was n ...
  read full comment

  I am also waiting for the SC written decision because it appears the SC assumed that Woyome has a contract with the government of Ghana, which contract the government of Ghana failed to seek parliamentary approval. That was not the case.
  
  From my understanding of the available documentary evidence, the government of Ghana never failed to seek ratification of agreements from parliament but rather abrogated the agreements with Waterville and Isofoton and re-awarded the contracts to a Chinese company. That was why the agreement or contract with them were not taken to parliament for approval.
  
  I repeat, there was no agreement or contract whatsoever between government of Ghana and Woyome. Therefore the government of Ghana could not have been accused of failing to seek approval from parliament.
  
  I agree with Prof Asare and you all that the failure of a government to seek ratification of an agreement from its parliament could not be visited on the parties who delivered their side of the agreement/contract. However, and as I have said, in the case of Waterville and Isofoton, not only were the contracts abrogated for their inability to deliver but they were also paid for the work done. Sadly, when NDC came to office, Waterville and Isofoton sued government of Ghana for wrongful abrogation of the contracts despite being paid for the work done by the previous government. Moreover, the said agreements never come into into force. Merely signing agreement/contracts by all parities did not make the agreement/contract binding unless the terms and conditions were met. Part of the terms and conditions of the agreements with Waterville and Isofoton stated clearly that the agreement/contract would not come into effect until approval by parliament.

  reply
• Bonsu 11 years ago

  If what you are saying is contrary to the sc understanding of the issue then there has been an unpardonable guff.That means they must have to review their decision if what you are saying is right.

  If what you are saying is contrary to the sc understanding of the issue then there has been an unpardonable guff.That means they must have to review their decision if what you are saying is right.

  reply
• B.B 11 years ago

  WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARDS? IN ACTUALITY, KUFOUR CAUSED MORE DEBT TO OUR NATION THAN ANY OTHER PERSON -WHETHER ALIVE OR DEAD. IS IT BECAUSE KUFOUR WAS OUR FORMER RULER SO HE CANNOT BE PROSECUTED LIKE WOYOME ,LET US KNOW. WE THI ...
  read full comment

  WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARDS? IN ACTUALITY, KUFOUR CAUSED MORE DEBT TO OUR NATION THAN ANY OTHER PERSON -WHETHER ALIVE OR DEAD. IS IT BECAUSE KUFOUR WAS OUR FORMER RULER SO HE CANNOT BE PROSECUTED LIKE WOYOME ,LET US KNOW. WE THINKING GHANAIANS BELIEVE KUFOUR MUST FACE THE SAME FATE,PERIOD.

  reply
• Mansa 11 years ago

  I agree with your analysis.

  I agree with your analysis.

  reply