A Member of the Legal Team of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Gary Nimako Marfo, has clarified that the embattled Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson remains the MP for the area.
According to him, the only stumbling block will be his inability to go to Parliament to perform the duties of an MP as a result of the injunction.
This follows a majority decision by the Supreme Court which injuncted Mr Gyakye Quayson from going to Parliament.
In its ruling on Wednesday, April 13, 2022, the Lord Justices ordered the MP not to carry out his parliamentary duties anymore until the final determination of the suit against him.
It will be recalled that the Cape Coast High Court in July 2021, annulled the Assin North Parliamentary elections when it ruled that Mr Quayson owed allegiance to another country other than Ghana at the time of filing his nomination forms to contest the polls.
The MP dissatisfied with the ruling filed a case for it to be set aside at the Court of Appeal. But in court on Tuesday, the presiding judge, Irene Charity Larbi in delivering her judgement ordered that all applications relating to the appeal case before the court concerning the Assin North MP have to be struck out.
He further took the case to the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal to strike out his appeal which also affirmed the judgement of the lower court.
The plaintiff also prayed the apex court to enforce the Cape Coast High Court Judgement and prevent a further breach of the constitution by restraining the MP.
Commenting on the Supreme Court ruling which has restrained Mr Quayson pending the final determination of the substantive case before it, Mr Nimako said “in view of the pendency at the Supreme Court, Mr Quayson, yes, can remain a Member of Parliament but can’t go to Parliament because he has been injuncted.”
Explaining further on Accra-based Joy News, he added that the people of Assin North would not have been worried about their no representation status in Parliament had Mr Gyakye Quayson obliged to the High Court ruling.
“After the judgment of the High Court, if they had not filed any stay or appeal on the back of the stay, and with all the pledge application they filed at the Court of Appeal, then reasonably, that would have been the end of the case. Yet, they failed to pursue their appeal. That is where they should take the blame. They should ask their lawyer why he failed to comply with the condition of appeal in the first place,” he said.