005078 Republic of Ghana, because the contracts, being of an international nature, ought to have been approved by Parliament. 13.On 14 June 2013, the Ordinary Bench of the Supreme Court found that the contracts were unconstitutionally awarded and therefore invalid and that the Applicant was not a party to the contracts. The Ordinary Bench, however did not order the Applicant to refund the money already paid to him by the Respondent State, but directed Waterville Holding Ltd (BVI) Company to refund the Respondent State all sums of money paid to it. The Ordinary Bench further directed the Plaintiff, Mr. Martin Amidu, to seek redress before the High Court with respect to the issues regarding the Applicant. 14. Dissatisfied with the decision of the Ordinary Bench, with respect to the Applicant, Mr. Martin Amidu filed an Application for Review before the Review Bench of the Supreme Court. By a unanimous decision, the Review Bench, in its Judgment of 29 July 2014, confirmed the decision of the Ordinary Bench on the issue of unconstitutionality of the contracts. In addition, it ordered the Applicant to refund the money to the Respondent State. C. Alleged violations 15.The Applicant alleges that in relation to the judgment of the Review Bench of the Supreme Court, the following rights protected by the Charter have been violated: i. Right to non-discrimination, guaranteed under Article 2; il. Right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law, guaranteed under Article 3; and iii. Right to have one’s cause heard, guaranteed under Article 7. * Article 181(5) provides that this article shall, with the necessary modifications by Parliament, apply to an international business or economic transaction to which the Government is a party as it applies to a loan. An ee