James Gyakye Quayson
The Member of Parliament-elect for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, has filed an interlocutory appeal at the Court of Appeal challenging the decision of an Accra High Court to hear his case on daily basis, beginning July 4, 2023.
Mr. Quayson, who is standing trial for perjury, deceit and making false statement to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in applying for a Ghanaian passport, was booted out of Parliament on May 17, 2023, after a seven-member Supreme Court held that he was not qualified to contest for the seat as he had not fully renounced his Canadian citizenship at the time he filed his nominations.
He, however, managed to retain his seat in last Tuesday’s by-election after beating his main rival, the NPP’s Charles Opoku with 17,245 votes representing 57.56% while his counterpart got 12,630, votes representing 42.15%.
An Accra High Court presided over by Justice Mary Yanzuh on June 16, 2023, ruled that it would from June 20, 2023, hear the case on daily basis following a request by the Attorney General and Minister for Justice, Godfred Yeboah Dame.
But lawyers for Mr. Quayson filed a review motion asking the court to reconsider the decision, particularly urging the court to adjourn the case to days that do not include June 22 and 23 to allow him adequate time to prepare for the by-election.
The court, in its ruling, turned down the motion for review and held that it is in the interest of fairness that trials are not unjustifiably delayed.
She said adjournments are at the discretion of the court and not the convenience of parties, indicating that its decision was clearly within the law and no case had been made to show that the order was contrary to law.
She indicated that the court did not violate the rights of Mr. Quayson in refusing to give him time to campaign, as a mere refusal of the court did not constitute denial of the right to fair trial.
Interlocutory Appeal
Lawyers for Mr. Quayson have filed an interlocutory appeal urging the Court of Appeal to reverse the decision of the trial court as it was riddled with errors.
The ground of appeal avers that the trial court erred in law when it failed to appreciate that the exercise of its discretion on June 16 in respect of the grant of adjournments violated the provisions of Article 296(a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution as did the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Attorney General.
It also avers that the trial court erred in law when it failed to appreciate the significance of the rights of the accused person contained in Articles 19 (13) and 21(3) as well as Article 19(1) in respect of the necessity for a court, when exercising its discretion, to consider all relevant factors.
Another ground of the appeal is that the trial court erred in law when it claimed that matters brought to its attention by the accused regarding “the abuse of prosecutorial powers with extremely prejudicial implications and an insult of the accused person and professional misconduct by the Attorney General” in respect of the trial were not relevant to its consideration of the review application.
It further avers that the trial court erred in law when it failed to appreciate that it did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the oral application made by the Attorney-General without prior notice to the accused and his lawyers for a significant change in respect of the fixing of dates for hearing of the case.
The appeal adds that the trial court “erred in law when it invoked section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code as if that section requires or justifies a criminal trial being heard ‘day to day’.”
The lawyers have subsequently filed another application at the High Court seeking a stay of the trial pending the determination of the interlocutory appeal.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak