James Gyakye Quayson
The Supreme Court yesterday threw out a motion filed by James Gyakye Quayson asking it to review its May 2023 decision which directed Parliament to strike out his name from its record as Member of the House representing the people of Assin North Constituency in the Central Region.
A nine-member panel of the court presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, in a unanimous decision, said submission in support of the motion constitute a re-argument and therefore dismissed it as totally without merit.
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court presided over by Justice Jones Dotse on May 17, 2023, booted Mr. Quayson out of Parliament after holding that his election was unconstitutional.
According to the apex court, Mr. Quayson did not meet the constitutional requirement for contesting for the seat of Parliament as he owed allegiance to another country at the time of picking up his nomination form contrary to Article 94 (2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.
“We sate without any equivocation that Article 94 (2)(a) means that to be qualified to be a Member of Parliament, a citizen of Ghana must not hold any other citizenship at the time when nominations are opened by the Electoral Commission for registration of candidates for election as Members of Parliament,” the court held in its interpretation of the constitutional article.
The embattled MP managed to regain his seat after winning the June 27 by-election in Assin North and has since been sworn in.
His counsel, Tsatsu Tsikata subsequently filed a motion asking the court to review its decision, arguing that the decision was ridden with errors.
Moving the motion yesterday, Mr. Tsikata told the court that the 17 grounds of the review motion bother on fundamental and basic errors of laws and every individual ground justifies the court in exercising the power of review as provided in Article 133.
He said the nature of the errors complained of is in each case an extremely serious matter because there are constitutional provisions which are being ignored.
Mr. Tsikata said the court’s direction on Parliament to expunge the name of Mr. Quayson from its records contravened Article 97(1)(e) as that constitutional provision should have guided the court in its decision.
He added that the court misrepresented the two previous cases that it placed significant reliance on in arriving at its decision.
The motion was opposed by Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, who argued that there has not been any demonstration of any fundamental or basic error that has led to substantial miscarriage of justice.
He said Article 2(2) gives the Supreme Court the power to give orders and directions, so saying the court cannot expunge the name of Mr. Quayson was wrong.
He added that the court is clothed with power to grant such reliefs as it deems appropriate, and added it was completely wrong for Mr. Tsikata to say that there was an error due to an order for the name to be expunged.
Frank Davies, counsel for Ankomah-Nimfah, who filed the substantive matter leading to the court’s decision, said the issue before the court was for determination of true and proper interpretation Article 94(2)(a) and there was no need for any proof of Canadian law as claimed by his opponent.
He added that there was nothing before the court to warrant it to exercise its review jurisdiction in favour of Mr. Quayson.
The review panel presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo and assisted by Justices Mariama Owusu, Avril Lovelace Johnson, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Yonny Kulendi, Barbara Ackah-Yensu, Samuel Asiedu, George Koomson and Eric Gaewu dismissed the application as having no merit.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak