James Gyekye Quayson
A fresh writ has been filed at the Supreme Court seeking to place an injunction on the embattled NDC Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyekye Quayson, for holding a Canadian citizenship.
A Cape Coast High Court last year found that at the time of filing his nomination to contest in the parliamentary election which he won in December 7, 2020, he held dual citizenship which is against the laws of Ghana.
The fresh writ, filed by Michael Ankomah Nimfah, is seeking the Supreme Court to restrict the MP from holding himself as such after he had been ordered by a Cape Coast High Court to vacate his seat.
The writ is also seeking the Supreme Court to interpret Article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution which states that “A person shall not be qualified to be a member of Parliament if he owes allegiance to a country other than Ghana.”
The court, however, adjourned the matter indefinitely after the writ could not be served on Mr. Quayson.
The Registrar of the court, Mathew Antiaye, when questioned by the court as to why the MP was not served with the writ stated that one Haruna Nelson, a bailiff who was assigned to effect the service on January 28, 2022, had indicated that he tried serving the MP through the Clerk to Parliament but he was told to do so through the Speaker.
He said on January 31, 2022, the bailiff went back to serve the MP through the Speaker but the Speaker’s secretary said he was out of the country and said she could receive the processes, hence their inability to serve Mr. Quayson with the summons.
Determined Fate
The Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, who is a respondent in the case, said it was wrong for the bailiff to have attempted service through Parliament because the status of the MP has been determined by a superior court.
He said the processes should have been served personally on Mr. Quayson instead of going through Parliament.
Indefinite adjournment
A seven-member panel presided over by Justice Jones Dotse and assisted by Justices Agnes Dordzie, Nene Amegatcher, Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Torkornoo, Prof. Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu and Yonny Kulendi subsequently ordered the applicant who is represented by Frank Davies to assist the registrar to serve the MP personally.
Initial Injunction
This is the second time an application for injunction has been filed against Mr. Quayson to restrain him from holding himself out as the Member of Parliament for Assin North.
Michael Ankomah Nimfah, who had lost the December 7, 2020 parliamentary election, had applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the then MP-elect from being sworn in and holding himself as MP for Assin North because he claimed the MP held Canadian citizenship.
A Cape Coast High Court on January 6, 2021, granted the application, but in flagrant disregard for the court’s order, Mr. Quayson was sworn in to be part of the Eight Parliament of the Fourth Republic on January 7, 2021.
Vacate Seat
Mr. Nimfah also filed a petition challenging the qualification of Mr. Quayson to be an MP, intimating that per Article 94 of the 1992 Constitution, the Representation of the People Law, Act 284 and the CI 127, Mr. Quayson was not qualified at the time of filing to contest the 2020 parliamentary elections, and should be disqualified.
The petitioner had claimed that as at the time Mr. Quayson was filing his papers with the Electoral Commission to enable him to go to Parliament, he was holding dual citizenship (both Ghanaian and Canadian), which the 1992 Constitution expressly does not allow for all those aspiring to hold public office in Ghana.
The court at the end of the trial in August last year found that Mr. Quayson was not qualified to contest the election as he held dual citizenship and consequently ordered him to vacate the seat for a new election to be conducted.
Appeal
Mr. Quayson has since been challenging the declaration by the High Court and as part of the process, filed an appeal at the Cape Coast Court of Appeal.
He subsequently filed three preliminary applications including one for a stay of execution pending the appeal, another asking the appellate court to refer to the Supreme Court for interpretation of Article 94 (2) (a) of the 1992 Constitution as well as an application for the court to grant him leave to file additional grounds of appeal.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the issue of the reference to the Supreme Court for interpretation of Article 94 (2) (a) of the 1992 Constitution and also dismissed the issue of his request for leave to file additional grounds of appeal, but granted the leave for the MP to file supplementary affidavit in support of the application for stay of execution and adjourned proceeding.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak