James Gyakye Quayson
THE SUPREME Court yesterday adjourned two applications filed by the restrained Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, to May 17, 2022.
The first application is seeking a review of the court’s decision to grant an application for interlocutory injunction against him, thereby restraining him from further performing his duties as the peoples’ representative of the area.
The second application is challenging the decision of the Cape Coast Court of Appeal to strike out his appeal for non-compliance with the rules of the court.
Both cases were scheduled to be heard yesterday, but the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court announced in open court that he had been instructed to adjourn the cases together with others to May 17 and other dates respectively.
It was unclear why the cases were adjourned as no reason was given by the court official.
The MP, in a motion filed by his lawyers, argues that the decision of the Ordinary Bench contained patent errors which led to its decision to restrain him from performing his parliamentary duties.
One of these errors, they contend, is the wrong assumption of jurisdiction over a suit involving declaring the results of a parliamentary election invalid when the court itself has previously decided on many occasions that it does not have jurisdiction over such a suit.
The Supreme Court in a 5:2 majority made up of Justices Jones Dotse, Mariama Owusu, Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu, Gertrude Torkornoo and Yonny Kulendi granted the application for interlocutory injunction against Mr. Quayson while Justices Agnes Dordzie and Nene Amegatcher dissented.
The restriction was imposed after the court granted an application for interlocutory injunction filed by Michael Ankomah-Nimfa, who is challenging the election of Mr. Quayson on grounds of illegibility.
A Cape Coast High Court last year ordered the MP to vacate his seat after it found that at the time of filing his nomination to contest in the parliamentary election, which he won in December 7, 2020, Mr. Quayon held dual citizenship, which is against the laws of Ghana.
The Apex Court in its decision restrained Mr. Quayson from further carrying out himself as the MP for Assin North until the further determination of the substantive matter before the court regarding the interpretation of Article 94(2A) of the Constitution, which borders on dual citizenship.
The court also restrained the MP from further attending Parliament with the aim of attending to business of the House in the name of the people of Assin North.
But the MP has filed a motion for review seeking the court to reverse its decision on ground that the court did not have jurisdiction to determine the results of a parliamentary election.
The motion avers that the majority decision of the Ordinary Bench was in patent and fundamental error, as it failed to appreciate that suit before it seeking the interpretation of Article 94(2a) was in reality an attempt to enforce the decision of the High Court disguised as an invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Apex Court.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak