The Supreme Court will today, Monday July 24, hear the oral examination of businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome regarding the GHS51.2million paid to him by the state in 2010.
The Supreme Court earlier this month dismissed an application filed by Woyome seeking to stop the Attorney General from orally examining him.
The Judge, Justice Alfred Benin, said that the application had no basis.
Mr Woyome was seeking to stop the Attorney General from orally examining him in connection with attempts by the state to retrieve GHS51.2million from him.
The judge announced earlier this month that he would rule on Woyome’s application on July 4 and therefore the oral examination that was billed for Thursday, June 29, did not come off.
The oral examination would border on whether Mr Woyome owed the state any debt and whether he had “any property for satisfying the judgement of this court, dated July 29, 2014’’.
The oral examination would also be based on whether the businessman “has any means of satisfying the judgement of this court, dated July 29, 2014’’ and the manner in which he “used the money paid to him by the Republic of Ghana’’.
But Mr Woyome filed a review of the decision of the court for the state to orally examine him.
At an earlier Supreme Court’s hearing, Woyome’s lawyer, Mr Ken Anku , prayed the court to temporary halt the oral examination pending the review.
He based his argument on Article 134(b) of the 1992 Constitution which allows a review of the decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court by three other justices of the court.
But the Deputy Attorney, Mr Godfred Dame, in a response argued that the application was a ploy by Woyome to delay execution of the court’s order.
He said that Woyome had failed to indicate if he will suffer any hardship or damage if the oral examination proceeds.
Meanwhile, Alfred Woyome has described as erroneous the move by the Attorney General to drag him to the Supreme Court to orally examine him.
Mr. Woyome told the Supreme court at the oral examination on Monday that he had a payment plan with the AG of which he was adhering to and hence was surprised that the AG took the action to court.