Ordering Parliament to expunge records of Gyakye Quayson is problematic – Lawyer

Tachie Antiedu, a private legal practitioner, believes the Supreme Court’s order to Parliament to expunge all existing records of James Gyakye Quayson is problematic.

The lawyer stated that the law regarding Members of Parliament and the decisions they made while in office is not clear.

He refers to the adjudication of a presidential petition and the president’s decision in the unlikely event that the court rules that the president was not validly elected.

To him, just as the president’s decisions must stand, the MPs’ decisions must also stand, even if it is determined that their election was unconstitutional.

In several analyses and inferences, he questioned the impact of a parliamentary decision in which an imposter appeared in the house and voted on a matter, only to be discovered later that he or she was not the MP.

"What happens to that House decision? The Constitution is silent on this point. If you look at the Parliament Act, as I did, you will notice that it is unclear. What happens if five people impersonate five MPs and participate in a House activity and are later discovered? The constitution is silent, and we should be concerned because this could lead to a situation that we will regret.”

"Let us examine how we elect the president and the procedures involved in challenging the legitimacy of the elected president under Article 64,” he continued. It states that if someone is elected President and someone challenges it, the person must go to the Supreme Court, and even if the person has been sworn in, the person will continue to govern. If the court rules that the person was not validly elected, the person will be removed, but his decisions and actions will be valid, according to the Constitution.

That is what I intend to use in analysing Gyakye Quayson’s case. As an individual, I find it troubling when people issue injunctions against elected legislators. It breeds anxiety. If it is determined that he was not validly elected, he will be removed, just like the president. So why do we bother causing confusion? If the president can make a decision that will stand even if he is removed, why should we order that the MP’s decision be overturned?”

Lawyer Antiedu stated that the court must examine these issues and the effects that they may have because they may cause commotion and confusion.

"Whatever happened in the past is in the past, and going back would have more negative consequences than positive consequences. Although the constitution is unclear, I believe it should not affect previous House decisions.”