James Gyakye Quayson’s request for the Supreme Court to overturn the high court’s judgment to bar further disclosures in the criminal case he is now involved in, was denied.
Gyakye Quayson’s legal team submitted a petition for certiorari, claiming that the trial judge erred in refusing to order the Attorney General’s office to make more disclosures.
Lawyers for Gyakye Quayson argued that the judge erred by rejecting their application for a hearing. They further claimed that the judge’s ruling was supported by an Attorney General document that was not accompanied by an affidavit.
The document in question, reported that no additional disclosures were available in response to Gyakye Quayson’s request for them.
However, Gyakye Quayson’s attorney, Justin Tarewagya, disputed the court’s use of the non-affidavit document. He contended that because it lacked the essential legal weight, the court should not have taken it into consideration.
Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, on the other hand, argued that the certiorari application was invalid and opposed it. He claimed that even though Gyakye Quayson submitted the application, it was incomplete because the accompanying deposition did not contain documentation from the applicant’s attorney, which is against the regulations of the court.
The Attorney General further denied reports that Gyakye Quayson’s attorneys were denied the opportunity to speak during the high court proceedings.
Mr. Quayson, who tried to halt his trial, said that the High Court erred when it turned down a request to compel prosecutors to turn over specific papers they had withheld.
Attorney General Godfred Yeboah testified before the High Court that the legislator had received the necessary documentation from his office. He cited contact between his office and the MP’s legal counsel as evidence before the court that materials in their possession had been looked over.
However, Mr. Quayson’s attorneys disagreed. They maintained that since they had not submitted a suitable answer, the AG cannot make reference to those correspondences. The MP’s legal team went to the Supreme Court after the High Court expressed disagreement with this viewpoint.
Justin Teriwajah, the attorney for Mr. Quayson, pleaded with the supreme court to overturn the High Court’s ruling. By citing the correspondence, he maintained that it implied the High Court had used information that had not been properly submitted to it.
“Our submission is that in the main trial, evidence is taken on oath. In a determination of a motion, it must be based on evidence given on oath. Our position is that if facts are deposed, the opposing side has the option to respond. That wasn’t the case”.
Justin Teriwajah
The Attorney General, however, disagreed as well. He continued by pointing out that even the processes filed was wrong because Mr. Teriwajah took an oath and signed the Supreme Court’s most recent processes, without demonstrating that he was authorized to do so by the MP. He said that contrary to what was being claimed, the lower court had not made an evident legal error in the record.
“Substantively, we submit that there is no error of law patent on the face of the record. An application invoking your jurisdiction must indicate matters which are patent. Where the court has to go beyond the depositions and fundamental attachments, clearly, that application does not properly invoke the supervision jurisdiction. It was an application for further disclosure. The application is improper and should be dismissed.”
Attorney General
The court ruled that the High Court committed no error of law. “We have examined the processes and find no merit in the application. We find that the applicant was heard by the court and the court had jurisdiction to rule on the matter,” the Chief Justice ruled.
Gyakye Quayson’s application was denied by the Supreme Court, which determined that it lacked substance after carefully examining the grounds made. As a result, the high court’s ruling on additional disclosures in the criminal trial is upheld.
Gyakye Quaysons Irregular Conduct Must Not Be Encouraged
Gertrude Torkonoo, the Chief Justice, also raised worry about the actions she claimed Assin North MP James Gyakye Quayson takes, while filing cases with the Supreme Court.
She saw that he frequently did not show up, which led to one of his attorneys filing and swearing to statements on his behalf. As such, the Chief Justice argued that such behavior was improper and should not be countenanced.
“He doesn’t treat this court properly. He engages this court, and he refuses to appear. When you ask the court to exercise discretion, you must treat the court properly”, she said. While presiding over a five-person panel to consider a matter brought by the legislator, the CJ made this remark.
Some panel members had earlier commented on the absence of the Legislator and on his lawyer’s swearing documents on his behalf.
“Supposing we want to have him cross-examined, you will disqualify yourself from counsel. You depose to affidavit and you appear before us as counsel. That practice was because your client has money, he sends you to the court. One day, when your wig is taken off, you will see.”
Justice Issifu Amadu Tanko
The Chief Justice additionally added that such conduct does not help the profession. “This practice demeans the profession,” she stated.
The case was heard by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo and Justices Issiufu Amadu Tanko, Emmanuel Kulendi, Samuel Asiedu and Ernest Gaewu.
READ ALSO: GES Urged To Return Disciplinary Powers To Teachers And Principals
