Reacting to Justice Atuguba’s submission, the Chairman of the Constitution and Legal Committee of the governing New Patriotic Party (NPP), Mr Frank Davies, disagreed with the former Supreme Court Justice, Justice William Atuguba’s criticism of the Assin North MP, Gyakye Quayson’s dual citizenship case.
According to him, the retired Supreme Court justice had succumbed to the same misconception about the case that the majority of people have.
Speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story on Tuesday, he said “On this call alone, he has misjudged, misconstrued his interpretation of what happened in Gyakye Quayson’s case.”
He explained that the issue of the election petition in the High Court was for the interpretation of Article 94 (2A) of the 1992 Constitution which meant that Gyakye Quayson was not eligible to hold himself out for election when at the time of the close of nomination, he had not renounced his Canadian citizenship.
According to Mr Davies, the case in the Supreme Court was not about determining any case in the High Court.
He added that if Justice Atuguba had taken pains to read the case, he would not have made such pronouncements.
This, he noted was because “the case evolves interpreting Article 94 (2A) which has not received any authoritative pronouncement from the Supreme Court”, adding that the issue of Res Judicata et non quieta movere does not apply because it was not on the strength of Article 94 1A.
This, he said therefore gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret the law which was exactly what they did.
On the other hand, the Director for Conflict Resolution with the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Abraham Amaliba, speaking on the same show, sided with Justice Atuguba in his comments on the Gyakye Quayson case.
