The Supreme Court will today, Wednesday, April 13, bring finality to the trial on the eligibility of James Gyakye-Quayson as Member of Parliament for Assin North Constituency.
The Apex Court with Justices Jones Dotse, Agnes Dordzie, Nene Amegatcher, Prof Ashie Kotey, Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Torkonoo, Clemence Honyenuga, Prof Henrietta Mensah Bonsu and Emmanuel Y. Kulendi as panel members will decide whether he should be stopped from performing Parliamentary his duties.
He is said to have held dual citizenship prior to being nominated to contest the 2020 elections as National Democratic Congress (NDC) Parliamentary Candidate.
A Cape Coast High Court in July 2021 nullified the election of Mr Quayson after it found he owed allegiance to Canada when he filed his nomination to contest as MP in 2020.
Michael Ankomah Nimfah, a resident of the constituency who filed this election petition in January 2021, initiated another action at the Supreme Court.
He urged the court to give effect to the Cape Coast High Court Judgement and prevent a further breach of the constitution by restraining the MP.
“If he continues to be in Parliament, he will still be in breach of the constitution. The people of Assin North have been saddled with an unqualified person for far too long,“ the Lawyer for Mr Nimfah, Frank Davies, told the Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 5, 2022.
Attorney General Godfred Yeboah took a similar position on the matter.
He insisted that there cannot be any debate that the continuous stay of the legislator in Parliament is a persisting breach of the constitution that cannot be allowed to fester.
“On account for the incontroverted facts of this case. It clearly indicates that the court is faced with the patent case of unconstitutionalality each passing day,” Mr Dame argued.
But the lawyers for the MP, led by Tsatsu Tsikata, disagreed.
He questioned the basis of the application pointing out that it was procedurally improper.
Mr Tsikata insisted the rules of the Supreme Court do not provide for such an injunction application.
He argued that a party wanting this remedy ought to instead request the Supreme Court for the court to decide what steps the party ought to take.
“The motion purports to be brought under the High Court rules. This is not the High Court. And the Supreme Court rules under rule five make provisions for where no express provisions are made for certain rules the court shall prescribe such practice. A request ought to be made,” Mr Tsikata said.
– BY Daniel Bampoe