Businessman Alfred Woyome on Tuesday begged the Supreme Court to set aside the Government’s purchase of some properties belonging to him.
He revealed he owns land worth $15.5 million which was far in excess of the debt he owes the state.
He said this land is readily available for use in the Volta Region.
The Supreme Court in June this year (2020) directed Government to purchase the businessman’s properties. This was after an auctioneer had failed to sell the properties.
Potential buyers were reportedly said to be afraid of purchasing the properties because they feel those properties may be restored to Mr. Woyome in the future.
Minister of National Security, Albert Kan-Dapaah, made this known in a letter dated March 4, 2020 and addressed to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
The letter made reference to the Supreme Court’s order to have the properties of Mr. Woyome auctioned to settle judgment debt.
It would be recalled that in July 2019, after three years of legal joggling over the true ownership of properties in the case involving the businessman and National Democratic Congress bankroller, Mr Woyome, the Supreme Court ordered the auctioning of the assets to defray the GH¢47.2 million debt he owes the state. The properties will just result in recovery of about half the outstanding amount.
Government is said to have since purchased the properties. Mr. Woyome who represented himself in court urged the apex court to set this aside. He insisted he had been abused for years and has always wanted to bring this parcel of land to the attention of the AG. He explained that it is worth 15.5 million dollars with a lot of potential buyers. He added that the total debt he owes the state is less than 10 million dollars so the state should listen to him. The panel of Justices led by Chief Justice Kwasi Anning Yeboah said the businessman had had many opportunities to sell the land. They urged him to simply sell them and pay the state what is outstanding. The panel concluded that the request by the businessman that it annuls the purchase is not supported by the rules of court and amounts to abuse of the court’s processes. The case was therefore dismissed.