“The application is dismissed as totally without merit.” – Supreme Court to Gyakye Quayson
In opposition to the review application, Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame argued that the court’s decision contained no errors and that Tsikata’s claim of misrepresentation impugned malice on the part of the bench. He firmly maintained that the court did not make any legal errors.
“The application is dismissed as totally without merit.” Those were the barking orders of the Supreme Court when it delivered its verdict on a motion brought by Assin North MP, James Gyakye Quayson.
The apex court stood firm on its earlier decision to order Parliament to remove James Gyakye Quayson’s name from its records. The court ruled that there were no errors of law in its initial judgment, which led to a second parliamentary election for the people of Assin North.
The court had previously ruled that the MP was ineligible to contest the 2020 polls due to his allegiance to Canada at the time of filing his nomination forms.
Despite winning a by-election earlier this month, Mr Quayson’s legal team filed a review application, arguing that the court’s decision was based on fundamental errors of law and contrary to a previous binding decision of the court.
During the hearing on Tuesday, July 25, lead counsel Tsatsu Tsikata urged the court to set aside its decision, arguing that it had resulted in a miscarriage of justice. He argued that the court should have only ordered Mr Quayson to vacate his seat if necessary, rather than issuing the order to expunge his name from Parliament records.
Tsikata further asserted that the court misinterpreted previous decisions that were relied upon to determine that Quayson, by holding Canadian citizenship at the time of filing his nomination, violated Article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.
In opposition to the review application, Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame argued that the court’s decision contained no errors and that Tsikata’s claim of misrepresentation impugned malice on the part of the bench. He firmly maintained that the court did not make any legal errors.
“It is also our submission that the two previous cases on which the court placed significant reliance, were misrepresented.”
“The court totally misrepresented previous decisions of the court. For us to be saying that there has been total misrepresentation and for us to be justified necessitates the court to grant the review.”
However, the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, disagreed with Tsikata’s arguments, stating that the court had not misrepresented its decision and that a review must demonstrate exceptional circumstances resulting in a miscarriage of justice, which he believed was not shown in this case.
“You can say the court misapplied, used it wrongly but not to say misrepresented which imputed wrongful conduct.”
The lawyers for the resident of Assin North who initiated the matter, led by Frank Davies, also agreed with the Attorney General’s position, accusing Tsikata of misrepresenting the court’s decision.
The nine-member panel, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, ruled that its decision was lawful and described Mr Quayson’s application as totally unmeritorious.
“The application is dismissed as totally without merit,” she stated.
In the end, the Supreme Court dismissed the review application, upholding its initial ruling to expunge Mr Quayson’s name from Parliament records. The decision of the court was supported by all the justices on the panel including Justices Mariama Owusu, Lovelace Johnson, Prof Henrietta Mensah Bonsu, Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, Barbara Ackah-Yensu, Samuel Asiedu, George Kingsley Koomson and Ernest Gaewu.
