Michael Nimfah Vrs Gyekye Quayson: The Height of Confusion for any Student of LAW
In all this, there is a critical material fact in Michael Nimfah Vrs Gyekye Quayson that boarders on interference with the independence of the Electoral Commission.
1. The Supreme Court recently decided that in the interest of Representation of the people, an MP Deputy Speaker of Parliament must not lose his vote when presiding. (attaching importance to the Constitutional principle of parliamentary representation).
The same Supreme Court; a few weeks later, has now decided that despite the Representation of the people of Assin North being at stake, an MP must lose his vote and not take part in Parliamentary activities, notwithstanding the pendency of the main suit and the merits of it yet to be determined. (A case of lack of fidelity and inconsistent application
of judicial principle).
2. Two High Courts (of coordinate jurisdiction) are handling Techiman South and Assin North Parliamentary election disputes. The former emphasised Representation of the people to deny injuncting the NPP MP, the latter not so bothered about Parliamentary Representation, insists on injuncting the NDC MP.
3. In all this, there is a critical material fact in Michael Nimfah Vrs Gyekye Quayson that boarders on interference with the independence of the Electoral Commission. Note that when the eligibility of the Hon. Gyekye Quayson was first raised by the voter in Assin North prior to the 2020 elections, the EC examined the issue, was satisfied and passed the Hon. Gyekye Quayson (who by then held a certificate of renunciation of Canadaian citizenship) to constest.
This fact makes the decision to contest in 2020, a discretionary decision by the EC , not necessarily that of Gyekye Quayson.
This again brings the Supreme Court in, because in 2020 alone, it made two decisions (on the use of existing voter IDs and the compilation of a new voter register) to the effect that once the Electoral Commission exercised its Constitutional mandate and discretion, same could not the questioned. Is the SC oblivious of this fact? If not, does it not constitute double standards to begin to question the EC’s discretion, a discretionary power you the same Supreme Court held to be almost unfettered?
We are living in these times in Ghana that must mark the height of confusion for any student of the LAW.
HAPPY EASTER HOLIDAYS.
By Dr. Rainer Akumperigya ESQ
