Two days after the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) decided to write to the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to produce Mr Alfred Agbesi Woyome before it, the businessman has expressed his willingness to do so on his own accord.
According to his lawyers, Mr Woyome would, however, not be willing to divulge information that would be prejudicial to the same subject matter currently pending before the Financial Division of the Fast Track High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Reacting to a decision by the Chairman of the PAC to the IGP to arrest Woyome for failing to appear before the PAC on Thursday, to answer questions on the GH�51.2 judgement debt, one of the lawyers for Woyome, Mr Musah Ahmed, explained that the defence team was not seeking to undermine the dignity and authority of the PAC as enshrined in the Constitution.
�We are, however, willing to appear to lay grounds for postponement,� he said.
Mr Ahmed said Woyome�s legal team fundamentally believed that once the issues were pending before the superior courts in the country, �it is our considered opinion that the committee will be doing justice to our client by deferring the invitation to our client for purposes of him giving evidence before the committee in respect of pending matter currently before the courts.�
�I honestly doubt if the committee can proceed to ask our client questions without delving into the issues before the superior courts,� Mr Ahmed said.
He said �under the circumstance, the interest of justice will be better served if the committee agrees with us by adjourning its proceedings until the final determination of the subject matter by the courts�.
Mr Woyome was summoned to appear before the PAC on August 23, but he failed to do so.
�We received the summons to appear before the committee an hour before the time we were expected to appear before the PAC and under such short notice, there was no way we could have made it,� Mr Ahmed said in an interview.
Mr Ahmed said although his client was willing to appear before the PAC, �we would not want our client to be subjected to questions, the effect of which will prejudice the outcome of the court case�.
<<Print>>