Supreme Court to hear Quayson’s appeal

The case in which Mr James Gyekye Quayson, Member of Parliament for Assin North, has filed a motion at the Supreme Court seeking to quash the decision of the Court of Appeal on the interpretation of Article 94 (2a) of the 1992 Constitution, has been adjourned to February 10.

The Supreme court is expected to hear Quayson’s lawyer, Mr Tsastu Tsikata’s response to the affidavit in opposition filed by lawyers of the respondent, Mr Michael Ankomah Nimfah.

At Tuesday’s sitting, Mr Tsikata informed the five-member panel presided over by Justice Gabriel Pwamang that he had received the affidavit in opposition filed Mr Nimfah on February 3, this year and per Rule 64 (2) of the Supreme Court rules and CI 16, he ought to be given seven days to respond.

Mr Tsikata accused the Registrar of the court for not acting in compliance with Rule 64 when he set out date for hearing of the matter without giving them ample time to respond.

He said they had also received some documents from the Court of Appeal, but the records had some errors, which needed to be corrected to reflect true copies from the Court of Appeal.

Mr Frank Davies, counsel for Mr Nimfah, told the Supreme Court that the parties were all served with the court of appeal records and wondered why Mr Tsikata could not respond to their affidavit in opposition after receiving same over the past six days.

Mr Davies said their affidavit in opposition was not strange and that Mr Tsikata could make verbal arguments by responding to the issues raised on point of law.

Mr Quayson had gone to the Supreme Court to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the apex court of the land over the decision of the Court of Appeal to raise constitutional questions bothering on Article 94 (2a).

Mr Nimfah, however, contended that Mr Quayson did not satisfy the constitutional requirement because he had not renounced his Canadian Citizenship.

On July 28, 2021, the Cape Coast High declared the MP’s election in the 2020 Parliamentary election null and void and restrained the MP for holding himself as a legislator.

The MP then proceeded to the Court of Appeal.

Source: GNA