We Were Right To Order Parliament To Expunge Gyakye Quayson’s Name From It’s Records - Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that it did not err in ordering Parliament to expunge the name of James Gyakye Quayson.

The court asserts that it sees no cause to reverse its decision, which resulted in a second parliamentary election for the citizens of Assin North.

Despite winning the by-election, Mr. Quayson's legal team has petitioned the supreme court for a review, claiming the court made fundamental legal errors in its ruling.

The court had previously ruled that the member of parliament was ineligible to run in the 2020 election because he still owed allegiance to Canada at the time he submitted his nomination papers.

Tsatsu Tsikata, the legislator's chief counsel, filed the review application on Tuesday.

He urged the court to overturn its decision because it had resulted in an injustice.

He explained that if the court deemed it necessary, it should have merely ordered Mr. Quayson to vacate his seat and not issued such an order.

"We also contend that the two prior cases on which the court placed substantial weight were misrepresented.

"The court completely misrepresented its prior judgements. For us to assert that there has been a complete misrepresentation and be correct requires the court to grant the review."

However, Attorney General Godfred Yeboah disagreed.

He questioned what he deemed to be an unjustified assault on the supreme court, noting that such a court cannot be accused of misrepresenting its own decision.

"It is possible to assert that the court misapplied or misapplied the law, but not that it misrepresented the law in a manner that attributed wrongdoing."

He added that a review was not an opportunity to re-argue the case, but rather to present evidence to the court.

He stated that a person requesting such a measure must demonstrate that exceptional circumstances have led to a miscarriage of justice, the discovery of a new and significant matter, or the production of evidence that, despite the applicant's diligent efforts, was beyond his knowledge or could not be produced.

He insisted that none of these obstacles had been overcome.

Michael Ankomah Nimfah's (Assin North) solicitors, led by Frank Davies, concurred with the position of the Attorney General in this case.

He charged Mr. Tsikata with misrepresenting the court's decision.

The nine-member commission led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo deemed its decision to be legal.

The Chief Justice deemed Mr. Quayson's application to be completely unjustified.

She explained that the Quayson case was merely one interpretation of Ghanaian law, with an emphasis on the legislator's legal standing.

She noted that Mr. Tsikata was essentially re-argumenting issues that had already been presented to the court, and that a review is not an appeal that warrants a repetition of the same arguments.

She continued by stating that Ghana's constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to issue whatever orders it deems necessary to implement its judgement.

She concluded that the order to the House of Representatives fell within this authority.

"The application is denied as having no merit whatsoever," she stated.

Justices Mariama Owusu, Lovelace Johnson, Prof. Henrietta Mensah Bonsu, Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, Barbara Ackah-Yensu, Samuel Asiedu, George Kingsley Koomson, and Ernest Gaewu comprised the remainder of the tribunal.