The Supreme Court has given James Gyakye Quayson seven extra days to file a review against the court’s decision to declare as unconstitutional his election as Member of Parliament (MP) of Assin North.

The court, presided over by a single justice, Justice Ernest Yao Gaewu, granted the additional days following a motion of extension of time filed by Mr Quayson.

At today’s hearing, even before counsel for Mr Quayson, Tsatsu Tsikata, moved the motion, Justice Gaewu indicated that he intended to grant the motion for extension of time, having already read the motion, its affidavit in support and the affidavit in opposition.

As a result, Mr Tsikata just moved the motion without reiterating the submissions in the affidavit in support

The presiding judge, therefore, asked counsel for the respondent, Frank Davies, if he had any new submission, other than the one canvassed in the affidavit in opposition that could convince him not to grant the motion.

Mr Davies answered in the negative and stated that since Justice Gaewu had already made up his mind it would be very difficult to convince him again.

Consequently, Justice Gaewu granted an extension of seven days for Mr Quayson to file the review.

Immediately Justice Gaewu granted the extension, Mr Tsikata submitted that his client had requested for an extension of one month in the motion but Justice Gaewu insisted that the extension was for seven days.

Motion

Per the Supreme Court Rules, 1996 (C.I 16), a party is entitled to file a review of the apex court’s decision within one month after the date of that decision.

A party can however file a motion for extension of time and if the court finds merit in the application, grant extra days for the filing of the review.

The judgment declaring the election of Mr Quayson as unconstitutional was delivered by the Supreme Court on May 17 this year, but the full reasoning was made available by the court on June 5, 2023.

In his application for extension of time filed on June 2, 2023, Mr Quayson submitted that he prayed that he intended to file a review challenging the judgment but he could only do so with the full reasoning behind the decision.

He therefore prayed the court to grant him a one-month extension calculated from the time the full reasoning of the judgment would be made available.

“That in the interest of justice, I pray that this court would extend the time for the filing of an application for review to one month from when the full judgment is made available to the applicant or his lawyers,” the motion averred.

In his affidavit in opposition, the respondent, Michael Ankomah-Nimfah, who filed the case leading to the decision by the court, urged the apex court not to grant the extension of time.

It was his contention that even after the release of the full reasoning on June 5, 2023, the applicant had enough time to have filed the review before the deadline of June 17.

Unconstitutional act

On May 17, 2023 a seven-member of the court held that the whole process leading to the election of Mr Quayson – filling of nomination forms, election itself and swearing-in, were all in violation of Article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, which bars a person with dual citizenship from contesting as an MP.

It was the considered view of the court, as at the time Mr Quayson filed his nomination forms in October 2020 to contest for the Assin -North seat, he had not renounced his Canadian citizenship and therefore was not qualified per Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution.

In view of that the court further held that the Electoral Commission (EC) also violated Article 94(2) (a) of the Constitution when it permitted Mr Quayson to contest the election.

“Upon the true and proper interpretation of Article 94(2) (a) the decision of the second defendant [Electoral Commission] to permit the first defendant [James Gyakye Quayson] to contest the parliamentary election of Assin North when the first defendant had not shown evidence of the cancellation of his citizenship of Canada is an act which is inconsistent with and violates Article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution ,” the court held.

SOURCE: GraphicOnline