The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday in a unanimous 9-0 decision affirmed its April 13, 2022, decision that granted an injunction against Assin North Member of Parliament (MP), James Gyakye Quayson.
The court on April 13 restrained MrQuayson from holding himself as for the constituency.
This was a majority 5-2 decision. Justices Jones Dotse, Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Torkonoo, Prof. Mensah Bonsu and Emmanuel Y. Kulendiheld that the MP should be restrained while Justices Agnes Dordzie and Nene Amegatcher took the view that the MP should not be restrained.
A Cape Coast High Court, in July, 2021, nullified the election of MrQuayson after it found he owed allegiance to Canada at the time of filing his nomination forms to contest the polls.
Michael Ankomah Nimfah, a resident of the constituency, who filed the election petition, in January, 2022, initiated another action at the SC, and 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.
On Wednesday, April 13, the Court said Mr. Quayson should no longer hold himself as MP or present himself in Parliament. Lawyers for MrQuayson filed for a review of the decision.
Two judges, Justices Prof.Kotey and AmaduTanko, joined the initial 7-member panel to hear the review application. Lead Counsel for Mr Quayson,Mr. Tsastu Tsikata urged the court to set aside the injunction.
He said: “It is our respectful submission that there are clearly exceptional circumstances in this matter, which necessitated the review we seek and we will respectfully further submit that this application requires your Lordships to uphold the very integrity of the judicial process in the manner that your Lordships have often pronounced upon yourselves”.
But, Deputy Attorney General, Diana AsonabaDapaah, disagreed, saying “It is our humble opinion that the grounds of review have not been met. It is a different thing invoking and a different thing proving same. In our humble opinion, he has failed woefully to meet this. Respectfully submitted”.
Mr Davies, who represented Michael AnkomahNimfah,said “No case at all has been made by the applicant to necessitate the review of this court’s decision on April 13, and to emphasise that the writ filed at the instance of the plaintiff is to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. It is not a parliamentary petition. That apparent confusion is manifest in all the processes filed thus far by first defendant. We pray that the court dismisses the application.”
The nine-member panel unanimously upheld the arguments of the Deputy A-G and Mr Davies and dismissed the review application.
