James Gyakye Quayson
THE SUPREME Court yesterday dismissed another review application filed by the restrained Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, challenging the court’s earlier decision not to order the Cape Coast Court of Appeal to refer Article 94(2a) to it for interpretation.
The review application was also seeking the Apex Court to set aside a decision by the ordinary bench of five Justices who refused a previous motion for certiorari to strike out the decision of the Court of Appeal not to refer the constitutional provision for interpretation.
On March 9, 2022, a five-member panel of the court presided over by Justice Gabriel Pwamang and assisted by Justices Agnes Dordzie, Gertrude Torkornoo, Clemence Honyenuga and Yonni Kulendi, in a 3:2 majority decision with Justices Pwamang and Dordzie dissenting, dismissed the original application for referral filed by the barred MP.
However, the panel in a unanimous decision dismissed the application for certiorari to quash the ruling of the Cape Coast Court of Appeal.
The MP, whose citizenship has been questioned by Michael Ankomah-Nimfa, and determined by the Cape Coast High Court as eligible to contest the 2020 Parliamentary election, through his lawyer, Tsatsu Tsikata, had argued that decisions of the Supreme Court which are binding were ignored by the Court of Appeal when it refused to refer the matter for interpretation.
Mr. Tsikata said the Court of Appeal took upon itself to interpret a constitutional provision which is meant for the Supreme Court, a situation he said was described by Justice Georgina Wood (rtd) as ‘judicial suicide’.
That motion was once opposed by Mr. Davies who argued that the Court of Appeal in Cape Coast never made any pronouncement on any constitutional provision, but only made reference to the ground of the appeal that it was yet to determine the appeal and granting the application will be to jump the gun.
He said there were no fundamental errors patent on the face of the records of proceedings, and the MP has failed to demonstrate that the appellate court was in error. He prayed the court to dismiss the application.
The court dismissed the two motions, and his lawyer later filed a motion for review urging the court to reverse its decision. But the review panel in a 5:2 majority decision, with Justices Pwamang and Dordzie once again dissenting, dismissed the application and said full reason for the dismissal would be made available.
Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, Clemence Honyenuga, Yonni Kulendi as well as Justice Nii Ashie Kotey and Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu who were added to the review panel formed the majority.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak