SC Ruling On Woyome: Will It Make Or Break Him? The Question Arising

Rejoice over AMIDU�s victories to the extent that the paper orders will translate into cash (Ghc 51 m) back to state coffers, and not that it nails WOYOME faster into jail. Having gotten this specific order directed at WOYOME as well, unlike the original case the Judgment for which he appears to have been mistakenly not fixed with some liability because of the pendency of another case, I should think best approach to be adopted by the state in recovering the money should now be a straight process. The state had filed a fresh writ in the High Court in pursuit of the money, but now it should be able to simply file an entry of judgment directed at WOYOME and have same enforced without further delay. Back to the first point about rejoicing. The prosecution will certainly wave both the June 2013 and July 2014 decisions to seek to frustrate his major and only reliance on what he deems a VALID contract but which one can say has twice been declared INVALID for its UNCONSTITUTIONALITY � ie lack of prior parliamentary approval. Question is, whose fault was that? Question is, it would have been declared VALID and CONSTITUTIONAL if same had received parliamentary blessing? This certainly may shake the foundation of his rightful acquisition of the funds. But the big question being determined in the criminal, not this civil/constitutional, case is whether or not he received the funds FRAUDULENTLY. So you see, the defence may also use these same decisions for its most likely stronger purposes in trying to diffuse the claim that he got the money fraudulently. That�s if he does really rely heavily on the said contract for rescue in the criminal case. Pray, but wait, the 1st declaration speaks of "a purported" contract "arising out of" agreements which were not placed before parliament. I think that's how it ought to be properly read. If its so, then it changes the game entirely and potentially makes his case an even difficult one to the extent that the right interpretation is that the agreements that are declared not to have been placed before parliament do not relate to the one upon which the then AG ordered the payments to WOYOME. The state should simply go ahead and file an entry of judgment and recover the money as per the order. It appears this is the end of the road as regards this leg of the case and door is eternally shut after the court�s rare and narrow review jurisdiction has been successfully invoked. People must know that the onus is on the prosecution to prove the alleged fraud beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, the work of the defence, in the main, is to cast a scintilla of doubt and which doubt, by the requirements of law, ought to inure to the benefit of the accused. It is very important to note that the two are two separate cases and not the same and so the outcomes so far ought not be prejudicially imposed on the ongoing civil or criminal cases, despite the obvious potential collateral effect.