Joe Gyakye Quayson
In a petition to the Cape Coast High Court, a resident of Assin North District, named Michael Ankomah Nimfah, to disqualify the MP for Assin North, Joe Gyakye Quayson. This is because he was alleged to be holding dual citizenship at the time of filing his nomination documents to contest the 2020 Parliamentary Elections.
The Cape Coast High Court has in consequence, ordered the Lawyers in the dual citizenship case of the Assin North MP, to submit their proposed issues, so as to enable hearing of the Election Petition to begin.
The Court on Wednesday also ordered the Lawyers for both parties involved in the Election Petition to be present in Court on the adjourned date.
The petitioner, Michael Ankomah Nimfah, on December, 6, applied for an interlocutory injunction to restrain the MP from being sworn in and holding himself as such. His request was granted by the court but the then-MP-elect was subsequently sworn in, to be part of the 8th Parliament of the 4th of Republic.
In the present petition, substantively challenging Joe Gyakye Quayson’s qualification to be MP, the petitioner intimates as per Article 94 of the 1992 Constitution, (the Representation of the People Law, Act 284 and the C1 127), that  the MP was not qualified to be elected at the time of his  filing to contest the 2020 Parliamentary elections and that he should be disqualified. Counsel for the MP had argued in an earlier Injunction case that it was not the time of filing to contest, that anyone should use to disqualify a candidate. Rather, once the Application to renounce the citizenship of the MP was set in motion, it was deemed to be effective. It was to be construed that, it is at the time of one being sworn as MP that the law applies.
In Court on Wednesday, Lawyers for both the 1st and 2nd Respondents were not present. In fact, the Lawyer for the MP, Abraham Amaliba had written to the Court praying the court to fix the case in mid-April.
The presiding Judge, Justice Kwasi Boakye, however, stated that he was in control of the Petition-hearing and that it was not within the purview of a party to an election petition to determine when they would want to be in court.
He subsequently ordered all parties to the petition to be present at the adjourned date of 24 and 25th of March and to submit their proposed issues for the hearing of the case.
The presiding Judge gave the indication to the parties present that he would want an expeditious hearing of the petition, and thus the parties to the case should cooperate, to ensure an expeditious hearing.
On the 24 and 25th March, the Lawyers would be in Court to iron out their disagreement as far as issues that would be set down for the hearing of the case are concerned.
One of the issues that would be set down for the election petition would be, whether or not the qualification criteria for who an MP is, applies at the time of filing his nomination, or at the time of his being sworn in as a Member of Parliament.
Source: myjoyonline.com