James Gyakye Quayson
The Supreme Court has set April 13, 2022, to decide whether or not to grant an application for interlocutory injunction brought against the embattled Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson.
The application, which was brought by Michael Ankomah-Nimfa, is seeking to enforce the decision of a Cape Coast High Court, by barring the MP from further participating in parliamentary proceedings.
The High Court had held last year that the MP did not qualify to contest for the position, as he held a dual citizenship at the time of his nomination, an act that sins against the 1992 Constitution.
The apex court had earlier dismissed an application for review filed by his lawyer, Tsatsu Tsikata, urging the court to reconsider its decision on their application challenging the propriety of an order for substituted service granted by the court, which he claimed was not fully complied with by the applicant.
It was the case of his lawyer that the order of the court was not followed to the letter hence the substituted service was defective, although the applicant and the court had held that the MP was duly notified of the existence of the writ.
A nine-member review panel of the court, presided over by Justice Jones Dotse, and assisted by Justices Agnes Dordzie, Nene Amegatcher, Prof Nii Ashie Kotey, Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Torkornoo, Clemence Honyenuga, Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu, and Yonni Kulendi, dismissed the review application for lacking merit, adding that its reasons will be made available by April 8.
Mr. Tsikata subsequently withdrew an application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of the review, and the court struck it out as withdrawn.
Injunction Motion
Frank Davies, counsel for Mr. Ankomah-Nimfa, then moved the motion for interlocutory injunction and argued that the motion seeks to enforce the decision of the High Court which held that the MP was not fit to be a Member of Parliament, and he cannot be an MP.
He said the MP’s appeal has been struck out by the Cape Coast Court of Appeal, and his continuous stay in Parliament is a breach of the Constitution, adding that the people of Assin North have been saddled with an unqualified person who does not need to be in Parliament.
Mr. Davies averred that the application was brought under C.I. 47 (High Court Rules), as that has always been the case where there is no express provision in C.I. 16 (Supreme Court Rules).
He added that the balance of convenience should tilt in favour of the applicant and therefore, prayed the court to grant the motion.
Oppositions
The application was opposed by Emmanuel Addai, counsel for the Electoral Commission, who argued that the applicant had obtained judgement at the High Court, and the proper thing for him to do is to enforce the judgement where there are no pending processes.
Mr. Tsikata, counsel for the MP, also opposed the application and argued that the application could not be brought under C.I. 47, as the Supreme Court is not the High Court, and Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules made provisions for where no express rule exists for a procedure.
He cited a number of cases, and held that under Rule 5, the applicant ought to have come for leave from the court before filing the application.
The Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, who is party to the case, touching on the constitutional aspect of the matter, cited cases where the Supreme Court had granted interlocutory injunctions where appropriate in constitutional cases.
He said the invocation of C.I. 47 does not make the application incompetent, adding that the court must consider the fact of a blatant disregard for the constitution.
Mr. Dame further stated that the court, under article 2 has the sole jurisdiction to pronounce on the unconstitutionality of an issue.
The court then adjourned the matter to April 13, for its ruling.
Meanwhile, the court has given the MP up to April 11, 2022, to file his statement of case to the substantive writ, which is seeking the interpretation of Article 94 (2a).
BY Gibril Abdul Razak