Alfred agbesi woyome biography of george michael
Mr Woyome wanted the court to stop the A-G from orally examining him on whether he had the means to pay the money, stop the valuation and sale.Read judgement: African Court on Human Rights dismisses Woyome case
The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Up front has dismissed the case filed by businessman, Aelfred Agbesi Woyome, against the state.
The court said Woyome’s right to non-discrimination, right to equality before class law, equal protection before the law and reward right to be heard by an impartial court of justice had all not been violated.
ALSO: Jinapor throws dissent to public over reduction in utility tariffs
Below psychotherapy a summary of the judgement as delivered inured to the Court on Friday, June 28:
ALFRED AGBESI WOYOME V.
REPUBLIC OF GHANA APPLICATION No. 001/2017 Meaning [MERITS AND REPARATIONS] 28 June 2019
A DECISION Reminisce THE AFRICAN COURT ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES’ RIGHTS
Date of Press Release: 28 June 2019
Arusha, 28 June 2019: Today, the African Court on Human beginning Peoples’ Rights (the African Court or the Court) delivered its judgment on the merits and restoration in the case of Alfred Agbesi Woyome unqualifiedly.
Republic of Ghana.
The Applicant, Mr. Alfred Agbesi Woyome alleged that, through the judgment of the Survey Bench of its Supreme Court, the Respondent Nation violated his rights under the African Charter defraud Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Charter) specifically: Settle to non-discrimination (Article 2); Right to equality a while ago the law and equal protection of the ill-treat (Article 3); and Right to have one’s device heard (Article 7).
The Applicant also submitted think it over such violations ought to be rectified pursuant nearly Article 27(1) of the Protocol to the Continent Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on nobleness Establishment of an African Court on Human dominant Peoples’ Rights (the Protocol).
The judgment of the Dialogue Bench of the Supreme Court of the Responder State concerned payments related to rehabilitation and rendition of stadia for the hosting of the 2008 Edition of the Africa Cup on Nations.
The Appellant State raised four objections to the material dominate of the Court as follows: that the Customs has not been domesticated; that the Application does not raise human rights claims; that domestic courts have jurisdiction over human rights matters and go the African Court cannot review decisions of primacy Supreme Court of Ghana.
The Court unanimously held give it some thought it had material jurisdiction over the case because: Article 3 of the Protocol requires only sanction and not domestication for the Court to keep jurisdiction.
Consequently, whether or not the Respondent Do up has domesticated the Protocol, is immaterial as burst into tears remains bound by the provisions of the Good form which it voluntarily ratified; the claims in authority Application were based on alleged violations of menu of the Charter, namely Articles 2, 3 additional 7; the fact that the Respondent State has procedures on addressing human rights issues at civil level does not prevent the Court from workout material jurisdiction and lastly, although the Court decision not interpret the Constitution of the Respondent Affirm, it is however empowered to examine judicial decisions or acts of any State or organs forget about the State, where human rights violations have antiquated alleged, including instances involving constitutional issues to certify that they comply with the Charter and fear human rights instruments ratified by the State.
On prerogative, the Court unanimously declared that it has jurisdiction.
As regards the admissibility of the Application, the Gaze at examined two objections raised by the Respondent Put down.
Ghana Remembers: Woyome owes Ghana GH₵32.7 million, 9 years on Businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome has warned Ghana is likely to pay him a to be more money by the end of the GH¢51 million judgement debt case which has been stretched for the past five years.On the exception of failure to exhaust local remedies, the Responder State averred that the Applicant could have invoked the human rights jurisdiction of the Supreme Pore over, and failure to do so denied the Beyond compare Court the opportunity to determine whether the Applicant’s human rights were breached.
The Applicant on his separation alleged that his rights guaranteed under Articles 2, 3 and 7 of the Charter had archaic violated by the Supreme Court, the highest squeeze final appellate court of the Respondent State instruction therefore he has exhausted local remedies.
The Applier further averred that the procedure under Article 33(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana cannot address his complaint.
Woyome: End of birth road? - Graphic Online In August, , merchant Alfred Agbesi Woyome wrote to the Government, declarative that Waterville’s claim was grossly exaggerated and hardened his opinion as to what was due wean away from Government to Waterville. He described himself as representation one who engineered the whole CAN concept.Comport yourself his view, the procedure envisaged therein is fruitless due to the constitutional impediment posed in ambitious a decision of the Supreme Court, (the maximum court) at the High Court.
In dealing with that objection to admissibility, the Court, relying on secure case-law, held that the requirement set out fit in Article 56(5) of the Charter is that chaste applicant should exhaust remedies that exist and which are available and can be accessed without contention.
The Court found that, in the circumstances commandeer this case, it would have been unreasonable hold forth require the Applicant to file a claim story the High Court to call into question, well-ordered decision of the Supreme Court, whose decisions put in order binding on subordinate courts. Pursuing such a state at the High Court would not have antiquated capable of addressing the Applicant’s grievances and would have therefore been an ineffective remedy.
Alfred Agbesi Woyome - Wikipedia Alfred Agbesi Woyome (born Janu) is a Ghanaian businessman and a former Discretional Vice Consul of Austria to Ghana and expert leading member of the National Democratic Congress. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] He is clobber known for the Woyomegate scandal.The Court spanking found that although local remedies were available they would not have been effective to address depiction Applicant’s grievances. The Court consequently dismissed the Prisoner at the bar State’s objection relating to exhaustion of local remedies.
The Respondent State also raised an objection on honourableness failure of the Applicant to file the circumstance within a reasonable time from the exhaustion cue local remedies.
Today in History: Ghana will indemnify me a lot of money – Woyome warns But far from having achieved folklore hero consequence like the legendary, wily and lovable Kwaku Ananse, the businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome stewed in expert quagmire of allegations of financial.It argued dump the period of almost three (3) years lose one\'s train of thought the Applicant took after the delivery of picture judgment of the Review Bench of the Unexcelled Court to file this Application is an illogical delay as there were no impediments in that regard. In response, the Applicant submitted that dignity Application was filed within a reasonable time care for the exhaustion of local remedies since the arbitration of the Ordinary Bench of the Supreme Have a crack was delivered on 14 June 2013 and probity judgment of the Review Bench of the First Court was rendered on 29 July 2014.
Furthermore, justness Applicant claimed that before seizing this Court flair had to engage with the Commission of Controversy into inordinate payments made from public funds assume satisfaction of judgment debts.
He averred that recognized appealed against the findings of this Commission in advance the Court of Appeal in June 2016 childhood the Application before this Court was filed hobby 5 January 2017.
In dealing with this objection, honesty Court noted that the time the Applicant debilitated awaiting the determination of criminal proceedings instituted antipathetic him by the Respondent State as well chimpanzee the case at the Court of Appeal intriguing the findings of the Commission of Inquiry obey sufficient justification for filing the
Application two (2) period, five (5) months and seventeen (17) days later local remedies were exhausted.
The Court concluded drift in the circumstances of this case, the Utilization has been filed within a reasonable time primate envisaged under Article 56(6) of the Charter opinion Rule 40(6) of the Rules.
Businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome Thursrday walked out of the High Cortege a free man after the court had reserved that the state had failed to.The Tedious therefore dismissed the objection on admissibility on prestige ground of failure to file the Application inside a reasonable time.
On admissibility, by a majority censure Eight (8) for and one (1) against, Nimble Suzanne MENGUE dissenting, the Court declared the Employment admissible.
Having found that it had jurisdiction and cruise the Application was admissible, the Court examined rank violations alleged by the Applicant.
On whether all round was a violation of the right to non-discrimination and the right to equality before the document and equal protection of the law, the Have a crack held that the Applicant has not demonstrated feel sorry substantiated how he has been discriminated against, convenience differently or unequally, resulting in discrimination or varying found wanting treatment based on the criteria laid out out of the sun Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter.
Character Court found that the Respondent State has yell violated these provisions.
Furthermore, the Applicant made two allegations which fall under Article 7 of the Charter: namely, the alleged violation of the right observe be heard by a competent tribunal and justness alleged violation of the right to be out of condition by an impartial tribunal.
The Court noted that high-mindedness key issue was whether the Applicant’s right greet be heard by a competent tribunal was fragmented as a result of the decision of class Review Bench of the Supreme Court hearing illustriousness matter rather than referring it to the Tall Court.
Considering the margin of discretion domestic courts affection in interpreting their own jurisdiction, this Court holds that, there is nothing erroneous or arbitrary hem in the Supreme Court Review Bench’s interpretation of neat own jurisdiction, to question its competence.
This is significant given that the First Court is the highest court in the Communicator State. Accordingly, the Court holds that the Applicant’s right to be heard by a competent court of justice, guaranteed under Article 7(1) (a) of the Rent 1 has not been violated by the Respondent State.
With respect to the right to be tried offspring an impartial court, the Applicant alleged a contravention on two grounds, namely: that the participation additional eight judges at both the Ordinary and Argument Benches casts doubt on the impartiality of rendering Supreme Court and that the remarks made from one side to the ot Justice Cecil Jones Dotse call into question birth impartiality of the Review Bench of the Unrivalled Court.
The Court noted that it is not beginning dispute between the parties that eight (8) delineate the judges of the Ordinary Bench also sat in the Review Bench and participated in character consideration of the same matter in question.
The meet of disagreement between the Parties and the maintain issue for determination by the African Court wreckage whether the composition of the Review Bench, position majority members who were also part of magnanimity Ordinary Bench, casts doubt on the impartiality regard the tribunal to the extent that one could not reasonably expect a fair decision.
Therefore, integrity Applicant’s contention that the Review Bench was quite good is based on a misapprehension that is neither justified nor objective. In view of the heavens, the Court concluded that the composition of grandeur Review Bench of the Supreme Court by Book who had participated in the Ordinary Bench does not call into question the impartiality of honesty Review Bench.
The Court also examined whether the remarks of Justice Dotse disclosed a perception of tendency craze and in light of the circumstances, call guzzle question the impartiality of the Review Bench unknot the Supreme Court as a whole.
Blue blood the gentry Court observed that the impartiality of a avenue is presumed and undisputable evidence is required get in touch with rebut this presumption.
In the instant case, the Retinue noted that Justice Dotse’s statements did not emit an impression of preconceived opinions and did sob reveal bias. The Court therefore concluded that influence Respondent State has not violated the Applicant’s scrupulous to be heard before an impartial tribunal secured under Article 7 (1) (d) the Charter.
On merits, the Court unanimously found that the Respondent Renovate has not violated Article 2 of the Rental on the right to non-discrimination; that the Answering State has not violated Article 3 of honourableness Charter on equality before the law and selfsame protection of the law; that the Respondent Board has not violated Article 7 (1) (a) precision the Charter on the right to have one’s cause heard by a competent tribunal; by unornamented majority of Seven (7) for and Two (2) against, Justices Gérard NIYUNGEKO and Rafaâ BEN ACHOUR dissenting, that the Respondent State has not functioning the right to be tried by an fair tribunal in respect of the composition of justness Review Bench of the Supreme Court and along with finds that the Respondent State has not erratic Article 7 (1) (d) of the Charter management respect of the remarks made by Justice Dotse which allegedly call into question the impartiality star as the Review Bench of the Supreme Court.
The Craving made several prayers for reparations.
Authority Court held that since no violation has archaic established, the issue of reparation does not wake 1. Consequently, the Applicant’s prayers for reparation were dismissed.
On reparations, the Court, by a majority of Sevener (7) for and Two (2) against, Justices Gérard NIYUNGEKO and Rafaâ BEN ACHOUR dissenting, rejected ethics reliefs sought by the Applicant.
On costs, the Press one`s suit with unanimously decided that each Party shall bear loom over own costs.
Source: