The Supreme Court maintained its April 13 ruling, which granted an injunction against Assin North MP James Gyakye Quayson, in a unanimous 9-0 decision.
Mr. Quayson was barred from taking office as a Member of Parliament for the constituency by the court on April 13.
This was a 5-2 majority vote. The five justices were Jones Dotse, Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Torkonoo, Prof Mensah Bonsu, and Emmanuel Y. Kulendi, with Justices Agnes Dordzie and Nene Amegatcher siding with the MP.
Mr Quayson's election was invalidated by a Cape Coast High Court in July 2021, after it was discovered that he owed allegiance to Canada at the time of filed his nomination documents to contest the polls.
A resident of the constituency, Michael Ankomah Nimfah, who filed the election petition in January 2022, has launched a new lawsuit before the Supreme Court.
He requested the Court to uphold the Cape Coast High Court's decision and avert a subsequent constitutional violation by restricting the MP.
Mr. Quayson shall no longer hold himself out as a Member of Parliament or appear in Parliament, the Court ruled on Wednesday, April 13. Mr. Quayson's lawyers then requested a reversal of the ruling.
Justices Prof Kotey and Amadu Tanko were added to the original 7-member bench to hear the appeal. Tsastu Tsikata, Mr. Quayson's lead attorney, requested the court to overturn the order.
"We respectfully submit that there are clearly exceptional circumstances in this matter that 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 frequently pronounced upon yourselves."
Diana Asonaba Dapaah, the Deputy Attorney General, disagreed.
"In our humble judgment, the review grounds have not been fulfilled." It's one thing to invoke and another to demonstrate the same. In our judgment, he has failed miserably to achieve this need. She told the judges, "Respectfully submitted."
Michael Ankomah Nimfah's lawyer, Mr. Davies, took a similar stance.
"The applicant has presented no case that requires this court's judgment on April 13 to be reviewed, and it is important to note that the writ filed at the plaintiff's request is to seek the court's jurisdiction." It is not a petition to the House of Commons. This apparent ambiguity may be seen in all of the procedures filed thus far by the first defendant. We hope the court will dismiss the application."
The nine-member panel then unanimously denied the review application, upholding the arguments of the Deputy AG and Mr. Davies.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0