The apex court will today rule on whether Assin North MP, James Gyakye Quayson can continue to represent his constituents in Parliament.
Michael Ankomah Nimfah, a resident of the constituency, brought the application to the Supreme Court, insisting that James Gyakye Quayson’s continuous stay in office despite a High Court Judgment annulling his election offended the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
This, he says, was not fair to the people of Assin North and frowns on the 1992 Constitution of Ghana.
A Cape Coast High Court in July 2021 nullified the election of Mr Quayson after it found he owed allegiance to Canada when he filed his nomination to contest as MP in 2020.
ALSO READ:
- Police woman crushed to death
- Odartey Lamptey’s daughter and wife jams to Camidoh’s Sugarcane in latest video
- Full details about Odartey Lamptey, his ex-wife, infidelity and fight over property
The plaintiff is thus asking the apex court to enforce the Cape Coast High Court Judgement and prevent a further breach of the constitution by restraining the MP.
“If he continues to be in Parliament, he will still be in breach of the constitution. The people of Assin North have been saddled with an unqualified person for far too long,“ the Lawyer for Mr Nimfah, Frank Davies, told the Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 5, 2022.
The Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah, also holds the same position.
He argues that there cannot be any debate that the continuous stay of the legislator in Parliament is a breach of the constitution that cannot be allowed to fester.
“On account of the uncontroverted facts of this case. It clearly indicates that the court is faced with the patent case of unconstitutionality each passing day.”
However, the legal team of the embattled lawmaker led by Mr Tsatsu Tsikata rejected these arguments.
Mr Tsikata argues that the rules of the Supreme Court do not provide for such an injunction application.
As a result, he questioned the basis of the application, pointing out that it was procedurally improper.
“The motion purports to be brought under the High Court rules. This is not the High Court.
“And the Supreme Court rules under rule five make provisions for where no express provisions are made for certain rules the court shall prescribe such practice. A request ought to be made,” Mr Tsikata said.