Assin North Case: High Court Dismisses Tsatsu’s Application For Variation Of Hearing Timelines3 min read

Essentially, the court upheld the arguments made by the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame in opposition to the motion and, by implication, dismissed those made by Tsatsu Tsikata, lawyer for James Gyakye Quayson.

Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh’s court, in essence, observed that adjournment of cases are carried out at the discretion of the court and not subject to the connivence of the parties involved in the case before the court.

Justice Yanzuh, in her ruling, referred to Section 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act (1960) Act 30, as was done by the Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, when he argued in opposition to the motion of Tsatsu Tsikata on Wednesday 21 June 2023.

Section 169, which is on “adjournment”, states that; “Before or during the hearing of a case, the Court,

a) may adjourn the hearing to a certain time and place to be then appointed and stated in the presence and hearing of the parties or their respective counsel then present, and;

b) In the meantime, may suffer the accused to go at large, or may commit the accused to prison, or may release the accused on the entry into a bond with or without sureties, conditioned for the accused person’s appearance at the time and place to which the hearing or further hearing is adjourned.

On the basis of these provisions, the court ruled that the Criminal Procedure Act (1960) Act 30, gives the Court the power to decide the venue, time and date for court sittings and no other person or authority has the power to do same and to change it.

“In light of this, the application is dismissed and because Wednesday is a publication holiday, I will adjourn sitting to Thursday 29th day of June 2023 and the 4th day of July 2023 and thereafter, on day-day basis” Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh’s court ruled.

Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata was in court for the accused person (James Gyakye Quayson). Diana Asonaba Dapaah, Deputy Attorney General, represented the state in the company of four other state attorneys.

Background

Quayson, in spite of a high court judgment declaring his election as an MP in the 2020 election unconstitutional, continued to hold himself as a Member of Parliament and was seen attending sittings of the House and carrying out parliamentary duties.

Displeased with his actions, the petitioner in the high court action, Michael Ankomah-Nimfah, a resident of Assin North, filed an application at the Supreme Court seeking an order to injunct Quayson.

He also sought an interpretation of Article 94 (2a) of the 1992 constitution of the republic, which states that “a person shall not be qualified to be a member of Parliament if he – (a) owes allegiance to a country other than Ghana”.

The injunction order of the Supreme Court will remain in force until the final determination of the application seeking interpretation of Article 94 (2a). The Cape Coast high court restrained Quayson from holding himself as the MP for Assin North on the NDC ticket.

On Wednesday 28 July 2021, Justice Kwasi Boakye also ordered those fresh parliamentary elections be held in the constituency. This followed a parliamentary election petition, brought by Michael Ankomah-Nimfah to the Cape Coast high court, seeking to annul the MP’s election.

Quayson polled 17,498 votes, against 14,793 for the New Patriotic Party’s Abena Durowaa Mensah, in the 7 December 2020 parliamentary election.

On 30 December 2020, Michael Ankomah-Nimfah filed a parliamentary election petition at the Cape Coast high court, challenging Quayson’s eligibility to be an MP.

He argued that the MP was not eligible because, at the time he (Quayson) filed his nomination to stand as a parliamentary candidate, he was still a citizen of Canada.

The act of filing, he argued, was against the express provisions of Article 94 (2a) of the 1992 constitution and Section 9(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1992 (PNDCL 284).