A motion has been filed at the Supreme Court (SC) to stop the Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, from holding himself as MP.
Mr Quayson has been sued by a constituent in 2021 for allegedly refusing to renounce his citizenship, at the time he filed nomination to contest the 2020 parliamentary.
The motion on notice filed by Mr Frank Davies is seeking a seven member panel of the SC, to interpret article 94(2) (a) of the 1992 Constitution.
Consequently, the court has directed the applicant to make a personal service on the MP in the absence of the Speaker of Parliament, Mr Alban Kingsford Suma Bagbin.
The court was presided over by Justice Jones Dotse with Justices Yonny Kulendi, Gertrude Torkonoo, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Nene Amegatcher, Agnes Dodzie and Avril Lovelace Johnson as members.
In August, 2021, the MP filed appeal at the Court of Appeal, Cape Coast, to challenge the decision of the High Court that declared his election a nullity.
On July 28, 2021, the Cape Coast High Court declared the Assin North Constituency 2020 Parliamentary election organised by the Electoral Commission (EC) null and void.
The court, presided over by Justice Kwasi Boakye said Mr Quayson, did not renounce his Canadian citizenship before he filed his nomination to contest the Parliamentary election on the ticket of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), and, thus, ordered the EC to organise fresh election in the constituency.
Dissatisfied by the decision of the High Court, Mr Quayson filed an appeal and joined Michael Ankomah-Ninfa, the petitioner, now respondent and the EC as respondents.
In the appeal, signed by counsel for the appellant, Justin Pwavra Teriwajah of Kaponde and Associate Chambers, the appellant argued that the trial judge erred in law when he did not allow for proof of foreign law in the determination of the issue of whether or not the appellant owed allegiance to a country other than Ghana.
He contended that the nullification by the High Court of the Assin North Parliamentary election in December, 2020, and the further order for the EC to conduct fresh elections in the constituency lacked any constitutional and or legal basis and that the judgement was wholly against the weight of the evidence.
It is the case of Mr Teriwajah that the lower court also erred in law, and acted out of jurisdiction, by not referring the interpretation of article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution to the Supreme Court having regard to the different interpretations of the parties in the matter.
He contended that the High Court wrongly assumed jurisdiction in breach of article 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution by purporting to enforce article 94(2) (a) thereof against the appellant on the alleged grounds that he owed allegiance to Canada at the time of his nomination as a candidate for the December 7, 2020 Parliamentary election.
He said that the High Court erred when it refused, failed, and or neglected to appreciate that annulling the EC’s decision to clear the appellant for participation in the December 7, 2020 Parliamentary election, was a violation of the EC’s independence under article 46 of the 1992 Constitution.
Mr Teriwajah said that the High Court was wrong in holding that an election petition in the High Court was a competent procedure for challenging the decision of the EC to clear the appellant for the December 7, Parliamentary election.
BY MALIK SULLEMANA