The Supreme Court has thrown out a review application filed by the Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson.
The application was in challenge to an April 13 ruling by the apex court that restrained the MP from carrying himself as an MP.
It will be recalled that a Cape Coast High Court in July 2021 nullified the election of Mr Quayson following a petition by a resident of the Assin North constituency, Michael Ankomah Nimfah.
But the MP sought solace at the Cape Coast Court of Appeal for the ruling to be set aside which allowed him to carry out his parliamentary duties.
Subsequently, Mr Nimfah in January 2022, initiated another action at the Supreme Court for an effect to be given to the judgment by the Cape Coast High Court and prevent a further breach of the constitution by restraining the MP.
After months of litigation, the apex court on Wednesday, April 13, 2022, ruled that Mr Quayson should no longer hold himself as MP or present himself in Parliament. This was a majority 5-2 decision. Justices Jones Dotse, Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Torkonoo, Prof Mensah Bonsu and Emmanuel Y. Kulendi formed the 5 while Justices Agnes Dordzie and Nene Amegatcher took the view that the MP should not be restrained.
Lawyers for Mr Quayson then filed for a review of the decision.
In court today, Tuesday, June 14, 2022, the panel of judges in a unanimous 9-0 decision upheld its earlier injunction against Mr Gyakye Quayson.
According to a report by myjoyonline, two judges, Justices Prof Kotey and Amadu Tanko joined the initial 7-member panel to hear the review application.
Lead Counsel for Mr Quayson, Tsastu Tsikata in moving the application said “it is our respectful submission that there are clearly exceptional circumstances in this matter which necessitated the review we seek and we will respectfully further submit that this application requires your Lordships to uphold the very integrity of the judicial process in the manner that your Lordships have often pronounced upon yourselves.”
But Deputy Attorney General, Diana Asonaba Dapaah disagreed.
“It is our humble opinion that the grounds of review have not been met. It is a different thing invoking and a different thing proving same. In our humble opinion, he has failed woefully to meet this. Respectfully submitted,” she told the judges.”
Mr Davies who represented Michael Ankomah Nimfah took a similar position.
“No case at all has been made by the applicant to necessitate the review of this court’s decision on April 13 and to emphasize that the writ filed at the instance of the plaintiff is to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. It is not a parliamentary petition. That apparent confusion is manifest in all the processes filed thus far by the first defendant. We pray that the court dismisses the application.”
The nine-member panel then unanimously upheld the arguments of the Deputy AG and Mr Davies and dismissed the review application.
Source The News Room
