Justice William Atuguba, a former Chief Justice and Supreme Court Justice, has strongly criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of James Gyakye Quayson, the Member of Parliament for Assin North.
He argued that the court had no business re-examining the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Member of Parliament when a high court had already adjudicated the matter.
Speaking at a lecture organized by Solidare in partnership with the Department of Political Science at the University of Ghana, Justice Atuguba asserted that the apex court’s intervention in a case already decided by the High Court contradicted fundamental legal principles.
He contended that the High Court’s decision should have been executed, rather than initiating a new case in the Supreme Court. Justice Atuguba criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to annul James Gyakye Quayson’s election, arguing that it lacked a legal basis since Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution designated post-parliamentary election matters to the High Court with the Court of Appeal as the appellate body.
“The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any question whether— (a) a person has been validly elected as a member of Parliament or the seat of a member has become vacant; or (b) a person has been validly elected as a Speaker of Parliament or, having been so elected, has vacated the office of Speaker.”
Article 99 of the 1992 Constitution
The former Chief Justice expressed concern that the Supreme Court’s decision implied that it had concurrent jurisdiction over parliamentary election petitions with the High Court, which was not in line with the 1992 Constitution. Furthermore, he pointed out that since parliamentary elections were conducted in over 200 constituencies, a centralized court like the Supreme Court was not envisioned for the adjudication of post-parliamentary election matters.
Justice Atuguba also argued that the Supreme Court failed to deliver justice when it nullified Mr. Quayson’s election, given that the MP had renounced his Canadian citizenship in November 2020, a month before the election. He found it untenable for the Supreme Court to conclude that Mr. Quayson held allegiance to Canada when he had initiated his renunciation of Canadian citizenship in 2019.
He said what was supposed to have been done was the execution of the High Court’s decision and not a fresh matter at the Supreme Court
“The decision of the Gyakye Quayson case was scandalous. The Supreme Court re-adjudicated the matter already decided by the High Court.“
Justice William Atuguba
The former Justice of the Supreme Court thus criticized the decision by the Supreme Court which nullified the election of James Gyakye Quayson as the MP for Assin North in 2020.
The 1992 Constitution And Parliamentary Election Petition
Quayson, MP
The Supreme Court ordered Parliament to expunge the name of James Gyakye Quayson from its list of recognised Members of Parliament.
In the case, “Michael Ankomah Nimfah vs James Gyakye Quayson”, the court reached a unanimous decision on four counts based on Article 94(2) of the 1992 constitution, 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 Supreme Court ruled unanimously to have Quayson’s name removed as an MP, citing the following:
As per Article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, between October 5 and 9, 2020, Quayson was ineligible to submit his nomination for the parliamentary elections in the Assin North Constituency.
Additionally, the justices of the apex court interpreted Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution to mean that the Electoral Commission’s decision to allow Quayson to participate in the Parliamentary Elections in Assin North without presenting evidence of the renunciation of his Canadian citizenship constituted an action inconsistent with and a violation of the laws of Ghana.
Consequently, James Gyakye Quayson’s election as MP was deemed unconstitutional.
Furthermore, as per Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution, the swearing-in of Quayson as the Member of Parliament for the Assin North was declared unconstitutional, null and void, with no legal effect.
This was after the High Court had ruled on the matter, hence the arguments by the former Chief Justice William Atuguba. In addition, Justice Atuguba said the Supreme Court failed to deliver justice when it nullified Mr Quayson’s election when the MP had renounced his Canadian citizenship in November 2020, and the election was in December 2020.
“The Supreme Court does not stand in a good light despite the clear renunciation in November 2020 whereas the election was in December, I am not able to see substantial justice in this.”
Justice William Atuguba
According to him, it was untenable for the Supreme Court to have concluded that Mr Quayson held allegiance to Canada when he had initiated his renunciation of Canadian citizenship in 2019.
READ ALSO: Mepe’s Education To Rise Out Of Ashes
