THE WATERVILLE CONTRACTS AND PAYMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\nThe Waterville contract and payments have two components or aspects.<\/p>\n
The 1st Component of the Waterville Contract<\/p>\n
The first component or aspect was the payment by the Government of Ghana of \u20ac22,365,624.40 as certified by Building Industry Consultants Ltd (BIC) to Waterville through the sub-contractors. See pages 4 to 5 of the Supreme Court judgment dated 14th June 2013. See particularly the finding of the Supreme Court on the last paragraph of page 5 which states that: \u201cThe value of the work previously undertaken by the 2nd defendant was duly confirmed by the consultants for the project, Building Industry Consultants Ltd (hereafter referred to as \u201cBIC\u201d). The Government of Ghana subsequently paid for all the work certified by BIC, totaling some \u20ac22,365,624.40. This payment was problematic since it appears to have used a restitutionary route to bypass the legal consequences of an inchoate international business transaction to which the Government was a party, which had not been approved by Parliament in terms of article 181(5).\u201d<\/p>\n
On page 37 of the judgment the Supreme Court after reviewing the case against the 2nd Defendant, Waterville, from pages 33 said at pages 37 in respect of this aspect of the case as follows: \u201cThis is an extraordinary account of the State\u2019s view of its liability to the 2nd Defendant. In our view, it was fundamentally erroneous in ignoring the effect of article 181(5) of the 1992 Constitution. From the analysis earlier made of the penumbra effect of article 181(5), we affirm that there is no liability of the State to 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant is thus obliged to return all monies paid to it pursuant to the transaction\u2026\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n
On page 33 to 34 the Supreme Court states that: \u201cThe Governments action in paying the 2nd defendant for the work it did prior to the conclusion of the terminated 26th April agreement was unconstitutional, according to the analysis set out above. According to the plaintiff\u2019s averment in his Statement of Case, verified by affidavit: (Court quotes paragraph 22 of the Statement of Case and continues on page 34)<\/p>\n
Thus, the Supreme Court found as a fact that: \u201cThe Government of Ghana subsequently paid for all the work certified by BIC, totaling some \u20ac22,365,624.40\u201d which was unconstitutional, and nobody can wish this away. It ought to be noted that at this stage there was no contract between the Government of Ghana and the sub-contractors through whom the Government arranged to pay the restitution to Waterville. They were sub-contractors to Waterville and therefore if Waterville had no right to any restitution or re-imbursement, the sub-contractors would have no claim to make any deductions from the \u20ac22,365,624.40 paid to Waterville through them.<\/p>\n
This explains why the Supreme Court stated as follows: \u201cRelief 14 is granted to the extent that the order is directed at the 2nd defendant, requiring it to refund to the Republic of Ghana all sums of money paid to it in connection with the two inoperative Agreements dated 26th April 2006 and the work done on the stadia (emphasis supplied).\u201d It is clear from the foregoing that to remain silent with this information to the public on this quantum of the judgment debt when Waterville goes to international arbitration is to curtail the reach of the Supreme Court decision and order in respect of the work done and paid to Waterville in the sum of \u20ac22,365,624.40.<\/p>\n
The 2nd Component of the Waterville Contract<\/p>\n
The second aspect of this contract apart from the certification of BIC and payment for the alleged work undertaken by the 2nd defendant, Waterville, and paid for by the NPP Government was the claim made by the 2nd defendant in the letter dated 9th Mach 2009 to NDC Government leading to mediation and payment of \u20ac25million to Waterville. See pages 6 to 7; and pages 33 to 41.<\/p>\n
The total amount to be refunded by Waterville in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court that: \u201cRelief 14 is granted to the extent that the order is directed at the 2nd defendant, requiring it to refund to the Republic of Ghana all sums of money paid to it in connection with the two inoperative Agreements dated 26th April 2006 and the work done on the stadia.\u201d: is restitution paid for the work done on the stadia as certified by BIC and paid for \u20ac22,365,624.40 and mediated payment of\u00a0 \u20ac25million making a total refund of a payment of \u20ac47,365,624.40.<\/p>\n
PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON THE SUMS TO BE REFUDED BY WATERVILLE<\/strong><\/p>\nThe Supreme Court inadvertently did not direct the payment of interest to the Republic in the above cases but corrected this in the Isofoton case when it specifically ordered that: \u201c3. Interest is to be paid on the sum adjudged above from date of its receipt by the 2nd defendant, in accordance with the Court (Award of Interest and Post judgment Interest) Rules 2005 (CI 52).\u201d The Republic of Ghana is entitled to interest on the amounts paid to Waterville and the motion for leave to enforce the decision and orders of the Court shows that interest has to be claimed on the total amounts from date of receipt to date of payment.<\/p>\n
CONCLUSION<\/strong><\/p>\nNo matter the insults and name calling by the Government and my own political party, the NDC, nothing will stop me from pursuing this GARGANTUAN constitutional rape on the people of Ghana to its logical conclusion as long as I have life in me. Putting Ghana First instead of Governments is the only salvation for this our dear Republic.<\/p>\n
Martin A. B. K. Amidu<\/p>\n
Click on link below<\/strong><\/p>\nAMIDU v ATTORNEY GENERAL’S APPLICATION TO ENFORCE-AMIDU’S AFFIDAVIT<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n–<\/p>\n
By: Nana Boakye-Yiadom\/citifmonline.com\/Ghana<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Former Attorney General Martin Amidu has noted that construction firm, Waterville Holdings, owes the state \u20ac47,365,624.40 and not \u20ac25m as\u00a0being reported by the media. [contextly_sidebar id=”nJ5YDTZKAnCGqWtp9dohrWt2X4WzwXAY”]He said this in a statement on Friday, noting that there were two components of the Supreme Court decision directing Waterville to refund the money which was illegally paid to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":104996,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[43,38],"yoast_head":"\n
Waterville owes Ghana over \u20ac47m not \u20ac25m - Amidu - Citi 97.3 FM - Relevant Radio. Always<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n