Restraining Quayson is irregular on its face; reduces SC to a forum for enforcing High Court judgment – Asare

Google search engine

The ruling against Assin North Member of Parliament, Mr James Gyekye Quayson is not just irregular on its face but it also reduces the Supreme Court (SC) to a forum for enforcing a High Court judgment, a United States based Ghanaian Professor who is also a private legal practitioner, Kwaku Asare, has said

The apex court by a majority decision of 5-2 on Wednesday, April 13, 2022, ordered him to stop holding himself as a lawmaker.

Justices Agnes Dordzie and Nene Amegatcher dissented while Prof. Henrietta Mensah Bonsu, Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Torkornoo, and Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi voted in favour.

A Cape Coast High Court, presided over by Justice Coram Kwasi Boakye, had earlier ruled that Mr Gyakye Quayson was not eligible to contest the December 7, 2020, Parliamentary Elections because he bore dual citizenship before picking nomination forms from the Electoral Commission, Ghana (EC).

Fresh elections were, as a result, ordered to be conducted while Mr Gyakye Quayson was asked to cease holding himself as MP.

But the man accused of having Canadian and Ghanaian citizenship allegedly goes to Parliament to join in proceedings.

In a Facebook post reacting to the Supreme Court ruling, Professor Asare said “The Court’s interlocutory injunction in this matter is entirely unjustified and appears to allow it to insert itself in a matter that is still making its rounds in the appellate process.”

Below is his full post…

The law is clear that when an issue of constitutional interpretation arises a court must stay proceedings and refer the matter to the Supreme Court.In the Assin-North matter, the plaintiff objected and the trial judge overruled the defendant’s prayer to stay proceedings and refer article 94(2)(a) to the Supreme Court for interpretation.Having objected and got the trial court to deny the defendant’s prayer, the plaintiff has now gone to the Supreme Court with a writ to seek an interpretation of article 94(2)(a).

The plaintiff’s writ by itself should be enough for the SC to arrest the high court judgment.

But rather than such an arrest, the SC has injuncted the MP, pursuant to a high court judgment that the prevailing party himself is implicitly alleging was per incuriam because it raised an issue of constitutional interpretation that should have been referred to the SC.The grant of the injunction is not just irregular on its face but it also reduces the SC to a forum for enforcing a high court judgment, which is still subject to appeal, and which even the prevailing party is raising questions about.

Furthermore, it is entirely inconsistent with Wulensi (Nyimakan case), Ayawaso West Wuogon (Amoo case), and other cases that have sought the injunction of a constitutional officer.What irreparable harm will the plaintiff suffer by allowing the MP to stay in office for a few more days, especially if the Court is inclined to provide a true and proper interpretation of article 94(2)(a)?How does a Court that is supposed to interpret an article of the Constitution start by setting aside the voters’ wishes even before it has been briefed by the parties?

The Court’s interlocutory injunction in this matter is entirely unjustified and appears to allow it to insert itself in a matter that is still making its rounds in the appellate process.

These are some of the judicial oddities that probably led the national security advisor to issue his recent warning.#SALL is the cardinal sin of the 8th Parliament.

By Laud Nartey|3news.com|Ghana

Google search engine