Mr James Gyakye Quayson, the Member of Parliament-elect for Assin North, has filed a notice of interlocutory criminal appeal at the Court of Appeal.
The applicant, who is dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court presided over by Justice Mary M. E. Yanzuh, dated June 23, 2023, appealed to the Court of Appeal.
It comes at the back of the refusal by the court to review and/or vary its decision of June 16, 2023, at the behest of the Attorney-General, ordering “day to day” hearing of the trial and fixed June 20 and June 23, 2023, for continuation of the trial.
Initially, the Supreme Court nullified Quayson’s election as the Member of Parliament for Assin North over holding a Canadian citizenship alongside being a Ghanaian at the time he filed his nomination to contest the election in 2020.
He now faces charges of perjury and deceiving a public officer at the High Court
Upon a by-election conducted by the Electoral Commission, the people of Assin North Constituency re-elected him to represent them in Parliament.
The appeal said the court erred in law when it failed to appreciate that the exercise of its discretion on June 16, 2023, in respect of the grant of adjournments which violated the provisions of article 296(a) and (b) of the 1992 Constitution as did the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Attorney-General.
It said the court below invocation of the “trite law” that adjournments were a matter of the discretion of the trial court made it oblivious to the requirements of article 296 of the Constitution which required that every such discretion be exercised fairly, candidly, and devoid of arbitrariness and capriciousness and not biased by resentment, prejudice, or personal dislike.
The court below failed to give due attention to important considerations such as constitutional rights of the accused in exercising its discretion.
It said the court below erred in law when it claimed that matters brought to its attention by the accused regarding the abuse of prosecutorial powers with extremely prejudicial implications and an insult of the accused person and professional misconduct by the Attorney-General in respect of the case were not relevant to its consideration of the review application.
The appeal said prejudicial statements made by the prosecutor, the Attorney General, seriously affected the fairness of the trial.
The court below completely abdicated its Constitutional obligation under articles 12 and 23 of the 1992 Constitution to ensure that administrative officials carry out their duties reasonably.
It said the court below also abdicated its inherent powers to ensure that its officers conducted themselves in accordance with the standards required of them under the rules of professional conduct and etiquette.
The issue of professional misconduct by the Attorney-General which were brought to the attention of the court below by the applicant were additional reasons for the Court to have reviewed the decisions it made at the behest of the Attorney-General for “day to day” hearings.
The court had, on June 21, 2023, at the hearing of the application for review, ruled that the supplementary affidavit which provided further evidence on these allegations was relevant and admitted the said affidavit in evidence on that ground, but now changed its position with no legal basis.
The court below erred in law when it failed to appreciate the significance of the rights of the accused person contained in articles 19 (13) and 21(3) as well as article 19(1) in respect of the necessity for a court, when exercising its discretion, to consider all relevant factors.
It said constitutional provisions referred to establish important constitutional rights which must be enforced rather than being curtailed, as the decision of the court did.
The Court below erred in law when it invoked section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code as if that section requires or justifies a criminal trial being heard “day to day”.
The appeal indicated that the Court below erred in law when it failed to appreciate that, on June 16, 2023, it does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the oral application made by the Attorney-General without prior notice to the accused and his lawyers for a significant change in respect of the fixing of dates for hearing of the case.
The court below did not address the issue raised in the application for review that it did not have before it, on 16th June 2023, any application-on notice by the Attorney-General to the accused and his counsel -concerning the fixing of hearing dates for the trial “day to day”.
The court below acted in violation of due process of law, thereby contravening article 296(b) of the 1992 Constitution.
The decision of the High Court was per incuriam a binding decision of the Supreme Court in Republic v. High Court, (Commercial Division A), Tamale; Ex parte Kaleem [2015-2016] 2 SCGLR 1332 and, therefore, in violation of article 129(4) of the 1992 Constitution.
The said decision of the Supreme Court makes it clear that it is within the inherent jurisdiction of every court to review, vary or modify orders it had made in circumstances such as those brought to the attention of the trial court in the application for review.
