[ad_1]
Businessman Alfred Woyome asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to annul the government’s purchase of some properties that he owns.
He revealed that he owns land worth $ 15.5 million, which far exceeds the debt he owes to the state.
He said that this land is available for use in the Volta region.
In June this year, the Supreme Court ordered the government to buy the businessman’s properties. This was after an auctioneer failed to sell the properties.
Potential buyers were reported to be afraid to buy the properties because they feel that those properties could be returned to Mr. Woyome in the future.
The 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 the Attorney General.
The letter referred to the Supreme Court’s order to auction off Mr. Woyome’s properties to pay off the judgment debt.
In July 2019, after three years of legal disputes over the true ownership of the properties in the case of businessman and financier of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Alfred Woyome, the Supreme Court ordered the auction of the assets to cover the debt. of ¢ 47.2 million. owes the state.
The properties will only result in the recovery of approximately half of the outstanding amount. The government is said to have bought the properties since then.
Woyome, who represented himself in court, urged the supreme court to put this aside.
He insisted that he had been a victim of abuse for years and has always wanted to draw the attention of the attorney general to this plot of land. He explained that it is worth $ 15.5 million with a large number of potential buyers. He added that the total debt he owes to the state is less than $ 10 million so the state should listen to him. The panel of judges 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 pending. The panel concluded that the businessman’s request to cancel the purchase is not supported by court rules and amounts to an abuse of judicial process. Therefore, the case was dismissed.
