James Gyakye Quayson
THE TRIAL of restrained Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, is to take its normal course after an Accra High Court dismissed his application for stay of proceedings pending the determination of an interlocutory appeal.
The MP, through his lawyer, Tsatsu Tsikata, had filed an application for stay of proceedings, as well as an appeal against the court’s decision not to stay proceedings and refer Article 94(2a) to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
Mr. Quayson has been charged, among others, for deceiving the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by making a false statement that he did not have a dual citizenship in order to acquire a Ghanaian passport.
He has also been charged with perjury for making a false statement at Assin Fosu, that he does not owe allegiance to any country other than Ghana, a statement he did not have a reason to believe to be true at the time of making it.
Again, the MP has been charged for making a false declaration for office, when he knowingly said he does not owe allegiance to any country other than Ghana, for the purpose of obtaining a public office as a Member of Parliament, a statement he knew to be material for obtaining that office.
The court, on February 15, 2022, prior to taking the MP’s plea had dismissed an application by Mr. Tsikata, seeking a stay of proceedings, and a referral of the constitutional article to the apex court for interpretation, arguing that three of the charges hinge on the interpretation.
Mr. Tsikata argued that three of the five charges – knowingly making a false statement, perjury, and false declaration for office relate to Article 94 Clause 2(a) of the Constitution, hence urged the court to stay proceedings and refer the constitutional provision to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
The application was opposed by the Deputy Attorney General (AG), Alfred Tuah-Yeboah, who argued that the mere mention of a constitutional provision in the facts does not warrant a stay of proceedings and a referral of the matter to Supreme Court for interpretation.
He said the referral will arise only when two or more rival interpretations are placed on a constitutional provision, something that has not happened.
The court, presided over by Justice Mary Nsenkyire, agreed with the Deputy AG that the mere mention of a constitutional provision in the fact does not warrant a referral to the Supreme Court for interpretation, and subsequently dismissed the oral application.
The court, in its ruling on the stay of proceedings, held that continuing with the trial while the appeal is heard will not occasion any miscarriage of justice and, therefore, dismissed the application.
The court adjourned the trial to May 18 for case management conference, after the prosecution had complied with its orders and filed its disclosures.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak