James Gyakye Quayson
The embattled Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, yesterday lost his attempt to stay proceedings in his appeal at the Cape Coast Court of Appeal, after the Supreme Court dismissed his application for stay and certiorari.
The application, filed by his lawyer, was seeking a stay of proceedings and order on the appellate court to refer Article 94 Clause 2(a) of the constitution to the Apex Court for interpretation.
The application also sought an order of certiorari to quash the ruling of the Cape Coast Court of Appeal which had dismissed his application for the referral of the constitutional provision to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
But 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 application for stay of proceedings and referral of Article 94 Clause 2(a) for interpretation.
The panel in a unanimous decision also dismissed the application for certiorari to quash the ruling of the Cape Coast Court of Appeal.
The MP, whose citizenship has been questioned and determined by the Cape Coast High Court, is before the Apex Court challenging the decision of the appellate court which dismissed his application urging it to refer the interpretation of Article 94 Clause 2(a) of the Constitution to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Tsikata, while moving the motion for certiorari, 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.
He 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 again 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 was 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.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak