The Supreme Court has dismissed an application filed by special prosecutor, Martin Amidu, which sought to enforce the Attorney General to retrieve judgment debt owed the state by Waterville. The apex court in its ruling described the application as incompetent and had no basis on any rule of law. Martin Amidu dragged the Attorney-General to the apex court stating that the state is failing to carry out the court’s order to retrieve the judgement debt paid illegally to the construction company, Waterville holdings. The Special Prosecutor went to court as a private citizen expressing frustration at the state’s inability to execute the order given by the court four years ago. During the last sitting, the court ordered the two parties to cooperate with each other so that the state can retrieve the €47. 3 million wrongfully paid to Waterville holdings. This order was made after Martin Amidu told the court he had documents that could assist the state to retrieve the money from the defaulter. Martin Amidu appearing in court on November 13, submitted some documents to the court indicating they were the documents to assist the Attorney General carry out its mandate by retrieving the money. Deputy Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, who represented the state, told the court to dismiss the earlier application by Martin Amidu which sought to compel the AG to go after the money. According to him the application is incompetent and has no merit. Martin Amidu for his part argued that he has used all legal means to retrieve the money and he will submit to any directive from the court as long as the money would be collected back to that state. Godfred Yeboah Dame also accused Martin Amidu of peddling falsehood in the public domain that the Attorney General is not willing to go after the defaulter for the money. Martin Amidu was not happy with the Deputy minister’s claims, insisting it is wrong for him to be blamed for the publications. He told Godfred Dame to “respect him”, if not he will not cooperate with the Attorney General, stressing that if not anything at all he should consider his age. The court in its ruling insisted the order to retrieve the money has already been given four years ago and it will be improper for the same court to give another order. It therefore, dismissed the application describing it as incompetent and having no basis in any rule of law.