In a unanimous ruling on November 24, 2017, the 11-member panel ordered Ghana to suspend the seizure of any property belonging to the businessman, “take all appropriate measures to maintain the status quo and avoid the property being sold’’ until the case was determined.

Alfred Agbesie Woyome proceeded to the African Human Rights Court in August 2017, when government began a valuation of his properties in an attempt to retrieve Ghc51 million wrongfully paid to him in a judgement debt.

The Court in a decision by an eleven member panel, said it will be unfair for the state to be allowed to auction Woyome’s properties, since the court could rule in his favour.

“The court finds that the situation raised in the present application is of extreme gravity and urgency on the basis that should the applicant’s property be attached and sold to recover the 51, 283, 480.59, the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the application on the merits is decided in his favour…”the court said.

“The court finds that the circumstance require that an order for provisional measures be issued, in accordance with Article 27 (2) of the Protocol and Rule 51 of the Rules, to preserve the status quo, pending the determination of the application.”

The ACHPR further ordered Ghana to report to it within 15 days “from the date of receipt of this order on measures taken to implement this order”.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court in Ghana is expected to give its judgment today, Tuesday], on the same matter, where Alfred Woyome is seeking a stay of proceedings until his case at the African Court is dealt with it.

It is unclear whether the decision of the African Court, will have any impact on the outcome from Ghana’s Supreme Court.

Background

Mr. Woyome was paid the GHc 51 million after claiming he helped Ghana raise funds to construct stadia for the hosting of the 2008 African Cup of Nations.

However, an Auditor General’s report released in 2010, held that the amount was paid illegally to him.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court in 2014 ordered Mr. Woyome to pay back the money, after Martin Amidu, a private legal practitioner challenged the legality of the payments.

Following delays in retrieving the money, Supreme Court judges unanimously granted the Attorney General clearance to execute the court’s judgment, ordering Mr. Woyome to refund the cash to the state.

There had been previous attempts to orally examine Mr. Woyome, with Mr. Amidu himself, in 2016, filing an application at the Supreme Court to find out how the businessman was going to pay back the money.

This came after the Attorney General’s office under the Mahama Administration, led by the former Minister for Justice, Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong, discontinued a similar application.

In February 2017 however, Mr. Amidu withdrew his suit seeking an oral examination, explaining that the change of government and the assurance by the new Attorney General to retrieve all judgment debts wrongfully paid to individuals, had given him renewed confidence in the system.

Woyome runs to African court after ICC rejection

In  August 2017, Mr. Woyome filed an application at the ACHPR in response to the Supreme Court’s judgement on July 29, 2014 that ordered him to pay the GH₵51.2 million on the grounds that he got the money out of unconstitutional and invalid contracts between the state and Waterville Holdings Limited in 2006 for the construction of stadia for CAN 2008.

He alleged in his application that Ghana did not respect the terms of the agreement that governed the financial engineering role he played in the transaction, and as such his rights and freedoms recognized under the ACHPR Charter had been violated.

He followed the substantive application with another application on July 4, 2017, praying the ACHPR to halt all processes seeking to execute the Supreme Court’s July 29, 2014 judgement, until his case was determined by the ACHPR.

–

By: Marian Ansah/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @EfeAnsah

The post African Court ruling favours Woyome appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

The ICC rejected Woyome’s petition citing Article 6(4) of its Arbitration Rules and also the lack of establishment of prima facie.

[contextly_sidebar id=”zR1SdmTkaf0kDAcUVzJdntn4SAQJSQTP”]The decision meant that Woyome’s case does not meet minimum requirement of the ICC for arbitration.

But a statement from Lawyers of Mr. Woyome, while welcoming the ICC’s decision said they had already advanced the case at the African Court  on Human and People’s Rights concerning some declarations made by Ghana’s Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court of Ghana erred by linking Alfred Agbesi Woyome to the Waterville contract by ‘necessary linkage’ using the now ‘residual unspecified Jurisdiction’ to ground ‘Justice ‘as their main Principle in ordering a refund of monies paid to Mr. Alfred Agbesi Woyome legally under the laws of Ghana.”

“Mr. Alfred Agbesi Woyome has sent this aspect of the case to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Right in Arusha Tanzania by invoking Article 40 read together with Article 75 of the 1992 constitution of The Republic of Ghana under case number Ref:AfCHPR/Reg./appl.001/2017/001. Ghana has ratified the necessary protocols of the African Court, recognized the competence of the African Court, and also submitted to the authority of the African Court. A preliminary determination of the case has been made and a prima facie case has been established by the African Court in favour of Mr. Alfred Agbesi Woyome and Ghana has been served all the necessary processes through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ghana,” the statement added.

The statement also noted that Ghana has been ordered to appoint Lawyers to represent the country by Tuesday, August 8, 2017.

“Ghana has been ordered to appoint their lawyers latest by Tuesday the 8th of August 2017. Ghana has also been ordered to file their response within 30 days after the 8th of August 2017,” the statement added.

Cries of persecution

Mr. Woyome had come out publicly to say he felt he was being persecuted by the Supreme Court in the matter of the judgement debt.

This came on the back of the Court’s approval, at the time, for him to be orally examined by former Attorney General, Martin Amidu.

Arguing this point, Mr. Woyome further noted that after an earlier judgment served him to pay the GHc 51 million, the Supreme Court rejected his mode of payment.

According to him, he had wanted to pay GHc4 million and spread the rest over a period of time but his appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court.

The embattled business is once again in court and has appeared to be orally examined by the Attorney General’s office on issues pertaining to whether he owes any debts and has property to satisfy the debt, and the manner in which he used the judgment debt money paid him, among others.

Mr. Woyome had revealed at the appearance he had been out of business since 2012 as he had lost all his businesses after his arrest in 2011 and subsequent trial.

Background

Mr. Woyome was paid the GHc 51 million after claiming he helped Ghana raise funds to construct stadia for the hosting of the 2008 African Cup of Nations.

However, an Auditor General’s report released in 2010, held that the amount was paid illegally to him.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court in 2014 ordered Mr. Woyome to pay back the money, after Martin Amidu, challenged the legality of the payments.

Following delays in retrieving the money, Supreme Court judges unanimously granted the Attorney General clearance to execute the court’s judgment, ordering Mr. Woyome to refund the cash to the state.

There had been previous attempts to orally examine Mr. Woyome, with Mr. Amidu himself, in 2016, filing an application at the Supreme Court to find out how the businessman was going to pay back the money.

This came after the Attorney General’s office under the Mahama Administration, led by the former Minister for Justice, Marietta Brew Appiah-Oppong, discontinued a similar application.

In February 2017 however, Mr. Amidu withdrew his suit seeking an oral examination, explaining that the change of government and the assurance by the new Attorney General to retrieve all judgment debts wrongfully paid to individuals, had given him renewed confidence in the system.

CLICK HERE FOR THE STATEMENT FROM WOYOME’S LAWYERS

–

By: Godwin Akweiteh Allotey/citifmonline.com/Ghana
Follow @AlloteyGodwin

The post Woyome runs to African court after ICC rejection appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Germain Katanga, an ex-militia leader in the Democratic Republic of Congo, should pay $1m (£800,000) to villagers targeted in 2003, judges ruled.

But as he was insolvent, the ICC Trust Fund for Victims should consider making the payment, the judges added.

Katanga followed proceedings via video link from jail in DR Congo.

The ICC sentenced him to 12 years in 2014 for aiding and abetting war crimes.

He was behind the 2003 massacre of hundreds of villagers in north-eastern DR Congo.

In total, the court ordered reparations of more than $3.7m.

“The chamber has assessed the scope of the prejudice to 297 victims as $3,752,620. The chamber sets the amount to be contributed by Mr Katanga towards the reparations as $1m,” said presiding judge Marc Perrin de Brichambaut.

A “symbolic” sum of $250 (£200) should be given to each of the 297 victims and a further $1m in “collective reparations”, the judge said.

Lawyers for the victims set out a detailed list of losses, including the destruction of houses, furniture, and the killing of livestock.

They also said survivors had suffered psychological harm because of the loss of loved ones.

“The order provides for two types of reparations: individual reparations, awarded to individuals to repair the harm they have suffered; and collective reparations, consisting of long-term projects covering a whole community but still focusing on individual victims to the extent possible,” an ICC statement said.

–

Source: BBC

The post ICC orders Congo warlord Germain Katanga to pay victims appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

On 13 March 2017, South African Minister of Justice and Correctional Services Michael Masutha withdrew the ICC Repeal Bill, intended to remove the country’s Rome Statute implementing legislation, from further consideration before the South African Parliament.

Last week, South Africa rescinded its official notification to the UN Secretary General of its intention to withdraw from the Rome Statute. This means that, for now, South Africa has stopped all internal and external processes regarding its withdrawal from the ICC Statute.

“The Southern Africa Litigation Centre welcomes parliament’s withdrawal of the ICC Repeal Bill. SALC along with many CSOs made submissions in time for the 8 March deadline on the Repeal Bill. SALC’s submissions recommended either a scrapping or review of the Repeal Bill in particular to include transitional arrangements for ongoing investigations and cases,” Kaajal Ramjathan-Keogh, Executive Director, Southern Africa Litigation Centre. “The revocation of the notice of withdrawal to the UN as well as this withdrawal of the Repeal Bill presents a fresh opportunity for the South African Parliament to reconsider whether or not it will leave the ICC and we hope that Parliament seriously considers the submissions made by concerned individuals and CSOs in its deliberations on this issue.”

“At this point, it is unlikely that a new withdrawal process will commence in the future given all the other pressing national issues in South Africa, including an ANC elective conference at the end of the year preceded by a policy conference in June, and general elections in 2019. Certainly, both parliament and more decisively the Gauteng Division of the High Court in Pretoria have forced the hand of the executive in this issue,” said Allan Ngari Senior Researcher at the Institute for Security Studies. “The ANC facing a leadership crisis affecting every sphere of governance and policy implementation. In its failing attempts to redeem its image both nationally and internationally, what seemed to the ANC as low-lying fruit (mantras of collective withdrawal from a neo-colonialist ICC and a chance to chart the way forward for African states) has not really been so. Although the executive has never publicly presented division around ICC matters, there have been attempts to sanitize the situation and several other issues.”

“It is my sincere hope that the South African Government has reversed its previous unfortunate decision to withdraw from the Rome Statute. It will achieve far more for international justice for the victims of atrocity crimes by remaining an active member of the ICC,” said Richard Goldstone, former South Africa Constitutional Court Justice and Chair of the Coalition’s Advisory Board. “The leadership of African nations is crucial for the future success of international criminal justice. It is what the interests of the victims of these awful crimes dictate—that South Africa should remain engaged.”

“South Africa’s commendable decision to revoke the ICC Repeal Act is a testament to the tireless efforts of civil society and many others in South Africa and around the world to protect historic human rights advances. The ANC now has a golden opportunity to reengage with the ICC and lead efforts to make international justice work for all,” said Clément Capo-Chichi, Africa Coordinator for the Coalition for the ICC.

“Atrocity victims, including Apartheid survivors, as well as the wider global community can take heart from the decision as it bucks the trend of South Africa’s recent responses to rulings by its judiciary on its duties as an ICC member state. It will be critical now to preserve and build upon this show of renewed commitment. While South Africa’s ICC withdrawal has been upended, we must remain engaged and vigilant against attempts to restart the process.”

The Coalition for the ICC, in conjunction with South African civil society, launched a campaign calling on South Africa to stay with the ICC.

The Southern Africa Litigation Center in particular has played a key role in challenging the constitutionality of the South African government’s decision to unilaterally withdraw from the Rome Statute in the South African courts.

The group has also challenged the government’s failure to arrest to arrest and surrender ICC suspect and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in June 2015 when he attended the African Union Summit, despite treaty obligations and ICC requests.

On 7 April 2017 in a public hearing, South Africa government representatives will face ICC judges over the country’s failure to arrest al-Bashir. The ANC government has repeatedly claimed head-of-state immunity under customary international law is in conflict with its Rome Statute obligations, and that it had not been properly consulted on this matter.

On 22 February 2017, Pretoria’s high court placed a constitutional roadblock on South Africa’s path to withdrawal from the ICC, ordering President Jacob Zuma to revoke the country’s October 2016 ICC withdrawal notice to the UN over a failure to obtain prior parliamentary approval.

Judges ruled the move was “hasty, irrational and unconstitutional.” South African and international civil society welcomed the decision as a victory for the rule of law, and called on parliamentarians to strongly oppose domestic efforts to repeal ICC legislation.

The Portfolio Committee on Justice and Correctional Services of the South African Parliament, tasked with making recommendations to parliament on the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the ICC Repeal Bill, received a range of comment from civil society, academics and legal experts calling on the government to reverse course.

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) submitted a brief to the Committee in collaboration with a number of South Africa’s leading jurists. The brief was signed by Retired South African Constitutional Court Justices Laurie Ackermann; Richard Goldstone; Johann Kriegler; Yvonne Mokgoro, Kate O’Regan, Zak Yacoob. It was co-signed by Navi Pillay, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, former judge of the ICC and former President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). Wilder Tayler, Secretary General, signed on behalf of the ICJ.

The signatories urged South Africa to remain a party to the Rome Statute of the ICC and engage, where appropriate with other African States, in actively pursuing appropriate reforms within the Assembly of State Parties, with a view to making the ICC more effective in advancing the objectives of international justice.

During the Committee proceedings, last week, the South African Cabinet noted the ruling of the High Court and said it would abide by the ruling and that it had established a task team to determine a compliance road map. Members of parliament also expressed dissatisfaction with the non-appearance of the Ministers of Justice and of International Relations and Cooperation and Minister of Justice.

–

Source: Coalition for ICC

The post Make international justice work for all – Coalition tells ICC appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

It had notified the UN of its intention to leave last October, saying the ICC pursued “regime change”.

The opposition Democratic Alliance then argued in court that the government had to first seek parliamentary approval.

But it may not be the end of the government’s bid to leave The Hague-based court.

Justice Minister Michael Masutha was quoted as saying after the court ruling in February that the government would consider its options.

In the meantime, according to a statement on the UN treaties website, the planned pull out has been officially cancelled.

South Africa’s original decision to pull out came after a dispute over Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir’s visit to the country in 2015.

The authorities refused to arrest Mr Bashir despite him facing an ICC arrest warrant over alleged war crimes.

Mr Bashir was attending an AU summit in Johannesburg, when the government ignored an ICC request to arrest him.

The ICC has been accused of being biased against Africans.

A non-binding African Union resolution agreed in January called for the mass withdrawal of member states from the court, with some countries accusing the ICC of undermining their sovereignty.

The ICC denies the allegation, insisting it is pursuing justice for victims of war crimes in Africa.

Last year, Burundi and The Gambia, along with South Africa, also said they would leave the court.

But The Gambia, under new President Adama Barrow, has changed its mind.

The ICC was created by the Rome Statute to prosecute and bring to justice those responsible for the worst crimes – genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

All 23 cases that have reached at least a pre-trial phase have involved Africans.

–

Source: BBC

The post South Africa revokes ICC withdrawal after court ruling appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Burundi, the Gambia and South Africa have all served notice of their desire to leave the ICC, accusing it of unfairly targeting African leaders for prosecution.

[contextly_sidebar id=”6BaVSocyBmXTiH5AhmcVDeQ914FywAio”]The ICC in the past 14 years, has brought charges against African leaders for various crimes but according to Judge Sabutinde, who hails from Uganda, the allegation by the African countries are unreasonable.

Addressing a group of journalists who were at the Hague on the invitation of the Dutch government to stay abreast of the International Justice System, Judge Sabutinde said, “the accusations that have been made against it [ICC], in my view do not make sense to me.”

“I sit and I take each argument and I measure it against the fact on the ground, such as the common statement, the ICC is persecuting African leaders. I take that statement and measure it against the fact.”

“In fact, more than three out of four cases were not instituted by the ICC, but were instituted by individual African states themselves,” he said.

‘African countries withdrawing from ICC’

In October this year, Gambia accused the International Criminal Court of ignoring “war crimes” in other countries and targeting African leaders.

Gambia’s Information Minister, Sheriff Bojang, in announcing the country’s withdrawal said “This action is warranted by the fact that the ICC, despite being called the International Criminal Court, is in fact an International Caucasian Court for the persecution and humiliation of people of color, especially Africans,” on state television.

“There are many Western countries, at least 30, that have committed heinous war crimes against independent sovereign states and their citizens since the creation of the ICC and not a single Western war criminal has been indicted,” a government statement said.

South Africa and Burundi also withdrew their membership from the ICC in October this year.

–

By: Eugenia Tenkorang/citifmonline.com/Ghana

The post ICC: Withdrawal of African countries does not make sense – Judge appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.

Tuesday’s announcement comes after similar decisions earlier this month by South Africa andBurundi to abandon the institution, set up to try the world’s worst crimes.

The ICC was set up in 2002 and is often accused of bias against Africa and has also struggled with a lack of cooperation, including from the US, which has signed the court’s treaty but never ratified it.

The court had been used “for the persecution of Africans and especially their leaders” while ignoring crimes committed by the West, Sheriff Bojang, Gambia’s information minister, said on state television.

He singled out the case of Tony Blair, former British prime minister, who the ICC decided not to indict over the Iraq war.

“There are many Western countries, at least 30, that have committed heinous war crimes against independent sovereign states and their citizens since the creation of the ICC and not a single Western war criminal has been indicted,” Bojang said.

The withdrawal, he said, “is warranted by the fact that the ICC, despite being called International Criminal Court, is in fact an International Caucasian Court for the persecution and humiliation of people of colour, especially Africans”.

Gambia has been trying, without success, to use the ICC to punish the EU for the deaths of thousands of African refugees and migrants trying to reach its shores.

The decision will also come as a personal blow to the court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, a former Gambian justice minister.

Burundi had said earlier this month it would leave the court, while Namibia and Kenya have also raised the possibility.

Over the weekend, the ICC asked South Africa and Burundi to reconsider their decisions, which came as a major blow to the institution.

“I urge them to work together with other states in the fight against impunity, which often causes massive violations of human rights,” Sidiki Kaba, president of the assembly of state parties to the ICC founding treaty, said in a statement.

Alleged war crimes

South Africa’s decision followed a dispute last year when Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir visited the country despite being the subject of an ICC arrest warrant over alleged war crimes.

Kaba said he was concerned that South Africa and Burundi’s decisions would pave the way for other African states to leave the court.

The tribunal is entrusted with “prosecuting the most serious crimes that shock the conscience of humanity, namely genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of aggression”.

Declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the European Union on South Africa and Burundi and the ICC https://t.co/9hzZ59dfOO

— Sidiki Kaba (@ICC_PASP) October 25, 2016

Luis Moreno Ocampo, the former ICC chief prosecutor, criticised Burundi and South Africa, accusing them of giving leaders on the continent a free hand “to commit genocide”.

“Burundi is leaving the ICC to keep committing crimes against humanity and possible genocide in its territory. Burundi’s president wants free hands to attack civilians,” he said.

He said Nelson Mandela, the former South African president, had “promoted the establishment of the Court to avoid new massive crimes in Africa. Now under the [Jacob] Zuma leadership, South Africa decided to cover up the crimes and abandoned African victims. The world is going backward.

“The chaos is coming. Genocide in Burundi and a new African war are in motion.”

–

Source: Aljazeera

The post Gambia withdraws from International Criminal Court appeared first on Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always.