He made these remarks when asked about his personal view during his vetting before the Appointments Committee on Friday, July 25.

“My independent view is that, as a true African, I am not in favour of LGBTQ,” he stated plainly.

The Assin North MP reflected on his years in Canada, sharing how he witnessed the country’s shift toward legalising LGBTQ+ rights.

“I was in Canada when LGBTQ was liberalised. I was one of the people who was against it in my community,” he told the committee.

He emphasised that his objection is grounded in more than personal belief. “So my answer to the question is that I will never support LGBTQ+ for cultural reasons, for religious reasons, and for the sanity of our own nation,” he said.

His comments add to the ongoing national debate on LGBTQ+ rights, as Parliament continues deliberations on Ghana’s Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.

Adomonline

ALSO READ:

• Gov’t betrays its own promises on LGBTQ – Samuel Jinapor slams UN vote abstention

• Anti-LGBTQ+ bill: How does NPP expect us to do in 6 months what they…

ALSO READ:

• Gyakye Quayson acquitted and discharged by High Court

• Gyakye Quayson reacts to ruling after 3 years of legal battle [Video]

He argued that the current restrictions unfairly marginalise Ghanaians abroad who are committed to the country’s development. “How we exclude them from leadership yet their heart, skills and resources are dedicated to building our nation,”he said.

Speaking in Parliament as part of the Black History Month, Mr Quayson, who faced legal action for contesting as an MP without allegedly renouncing his dual citizen status, said, “Our history allows us to reflect on the perseverance of our people throughout history slavery, institutional racism, and the ongoing fight for equality. Africa, despite being rich in natural resources, remains paradoxically underdeveloped due to centuries of exploitation, colonisation, and unfair global systems.”

He insisted that Ghana’s laws must evolve to align with the realities of its people, particularly those in the diaspora. “Our constitution, a beacon of democracy, it must evolve to reflect the global realities of our people. How do we marginalise those who have sought better opportunities abroad yet remain deeply connected to Ghana?” he questioned.

Mr Quayson, who was previously prosecuted over his dual citizenship status, said the issue goes beyond individual experiences and should be treated as a national concern. “The fight against dual citizenship restrictions and political ambition is not a personal battle but a national conversation,” he said.

He also suggested that if dual citizens are granted the right to hold public office, taxation policies should be examined to ensure fairness.

“If you are a dual citizen and you are entitled to be a Member of Parliament, Chief Justice, or any other high office, and you earn your income from a country like the UK, the Ghanaian tax regime should be able to catch up with you as well,” he said.

Mr Quayson urged Parliament to revisit the dual citizenship amendment bill, which had reached the second reading stage in the last Parliament but was not passed before the House dissolved, “The time is due for a change in the law,” he said.

ALSO READ:

• I support dual citizenship holders becoming MPs – NPP MP
• Supreme Court rules on appointment of persons with dual citizenship as Chief Justice, Directors

Mr Quayson polled 18,023 votes, representing 56.35% of the total votes.

His main contender, Charles Opoku of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) obtained 13,599 votes, representing 42.52%.

The landslide victory reaffirms Mr Quayson’s grip on the constituency despite legal challenges and opposition from the NPP.

His political journey which began in the 2020 election was marked by controversy over a dual citizenship with Canada.

He was found to have violated Article 94(2)(a) of Ghana’s Constitution with his election annulled by the Supreme Court.

He, however, won the seat and returned to parliament in a by-election held on June 27, 2023, and was sworn in on July 4, 2023.

ALSO READ:

• I would have withdrawn if not the love i have for Assin North –…

• We won’t forget you should we regain power in 2024 – Mahama to Assin…

The items include new vehicle tyres to replace worn ones, as well as several adjustable beds to facilitate hospital patient care, transportation and referrals.

The ambulance serves more than 58 communities through its digitalized management system, integrated with the National Digital Property Address System.

It was grounded due to tire failure, creating a huge vacuum in residents’ emergency health services.

Numerous appeals to the District Assembly and other corporate entities to support the maintenance of the ambulance fell on deadly ears.

Alternatively, residents in hard-to-reach communities had to resort to the services of private facilities to respond to serious health emergencies at exorbitant prices.

Others relied on services from neighboring districts such as Adansi South District in the Ashanti Region, Assin Fosu Municipality, Birim South District in the Eastern Region and Twifo Atti-Morkwa District in the Central Region.

Presenting the items on behalf of the MP, Mr Sylvester Amakye Nyarkoh, the National Democratic Congress Electoral Officer and Director of Communications for Assin North Constituency, emphasized the MP’s commitment to improving the welfare of residents.

He said as much, which was reflected in his quick response to the agency’s request to ensure an effective emergency medical service to help improve the district’s emergency response capabilities.

Mr. Obed Adu Sarkodie, the Advance Emergency Medical Technologist (AEMT) in the district, expressed the ordeal of the service and was grateful to the Member of Parliament for the gesture.

“We are pleased to say that the wait is finally over and that the ambulance is now fit for purpose and ready for use. We need such support to provide pre-hospital emergency care to road traffic victims, domestic, industrial and medical cases.

“We provide standby emergency coverage during mass public gatherings and liaise with other emergency services in times of disasters or incidents with many casualties,” he indicated, urging voters to continue to support him and pray for him to to facilitate ongoing development projects.

President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo commissioned and distributed 307 ambulances in the year 2020 to help improve the operations of the service.

The new ambulances were distributed to all 275 constituencies in Ghana in implementation of the government’s 2016 election campaign to help improve emergency healthcare.

According to the Ministry of Health, before the introduction of the 307 ambulances, there were only 50 functioning ambulances.

Under the cross-examination of Mr Quayson’s lawyer, Tsatsu Tsikata, the witness said the accused in his statutory declaration further indicated that he was a Ghanaian citizen by birth.

Charges

Mr Quayson is facing charges of forgery and perjury about certain alleged offences in the run-up to the 2020 Assin North parliamentary election.

He has pleaded not guilty to five counts of forgery of passport or travel certificate, knowingly making a false statutory declaration, perjury and false declaration for office.

It is the case of the prosecution that Mr Quayson allegedly made a false statement to the Passport Office that he did not hold a passport to another country when he applied for a Ghanaian Passport.

In addition, the prosecution has accused Mr Quayson of making a false declaration to the Electoral Commission (EC) to the effect that he (Quayson) did not owe any allegiance to a foreign country when he filed to contest as a candidate for the Assin North seat.

Testimony

Abubakar Sadick Yahaya, who is a Registrar with the Judicial Service of Ghana, said he was a commissioner in the Assin North election.

He told the court presided over by Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh that in the lead-up to the election, he was stationed at the Assin Fosu District Court.

Counsel asked the witness whether he wrote the witness statement to the case investigator.

Mr Yahaya replied in the affirmative and said he ordered one of his typists to type the written statement.

Counsel further asked for the name of the typist but the witness said he could not remember.

The witness again confirmed that he read the content of the statutory declaration of the aspirants in English and Twi, including the accused.

He added that in the case of Mr Quayson, he read his statutory declaration in English and Twi to him.

The case has been adjourned to February 16, this year for the prosecution to call its next witness. 

ALSO READ:

• No error in High Court orders on Quayson’s trial – Judge  

• Gyakye Quayson makes shocking revelation about judge who annulled his election

The accused, who is on trial for alleged counts of perjury, was instructed by the court on November 3 to either appear in court or join a virtual link on November 9.

This directive was necessitated by the failure of the accused and his lawyers to make themselves available for proceedings at the last adjourned date.

The Judge, Justice Mary Yankuh, directed that the trial may continue in absentia if the accused, who she believed did not have any reasonable basis to be absent, repeats a similar act.

But on Thursday when the case was called, his lawyers led by Tsatsu Tsikata explained that James Gyakye Quayson was out of the country for medical tests and requisite treatment.

“The accused person is in Canada for medical tests and the requisite treatment arising from those tests,” Tsatsu Tsikata noted in court.

He explained to the court that, the accused was preparing for the medical doctors in Canada to provide the court with an update on his medical situation for which the treatment may take 5 months.

He, however, indicated that steps are being taken to get a medical doctor in Ghana to testify to the medical condition of the legislator.

“I am, therefore, asking the court to allow us to contact that doctor in Ghana to make him available to the court to make it clear to the court the medical situation which makes it necessary for the accused to go for medical treatment from specialized doctors,” Tsatsu Tsikata pleaded with the court.

He also notified the court that his client and lawyers were not aware of the November 3 sitting where the order to possibly try the case in his absence was given.

He urged the court to review its stance taken on November 3.

But the Judge indicated that there was no evidence before the court confirming the medical condition of the accused; hence, the court will treat it as though he has no medical condition as claimed.

The judge then ordered the trial to continue in his absence under article 19(3b) of the 1992 constitution and asked Tsatsu Tsikata to conclude his cross-examination of prosecution witness 1, Richard Takyi, an executive of the NPP in the Central Region.

ALSO READ:

• Court will not countenance undue delays; Quayson to be tried in absentia if… 

• Supreme Court ruling on Gyakye Quayson’s case scandalous – Atuguba

• I’m not scared of going to jail – Gyakye Quayson

According to Frank Davies, the retired Supreme Court justice has succumbed to the same misconception about the case that the majority of people have.

This, he says, is quite unfortunate.

Speaking on Joy FM’s Top Story Frank Davies said, “On this call alone, he has misjudged, misconstrued his interpretation of what happened in Gyakye Quayson’s case.”

Mr Davies’ comments come after Justice Atuguba in a speech during a public lecture on Tuesday labeled the court’s decision in Gyakye Quayson’s case as “scandalous.”

He argued that the Supreme Court should not have taken on the case in the first place.

He contended that the matter had already been adjudicated by the High Court, and the Supreme Court’s decision to proceed with it contradicts a fundamental principle of law.

Justice Atuguba insisted that the proper course of action for the Supreme Court should have been to execute the High Court’s decision rather than initiate a new trial.

But Mr Davies disagrees with Justice Atuguba’s views.

He explained that the issue of the election petition in the High Court was for the interpretation of Article 94 (2A) of the 1992 Constitution which means that Gyakye Quayson was not eligible to hold himself out for election when at the time of the close of nomination, he had not renounced his Canadian citizenship.

According to Mr Davies, the case in the Supreme Court was not about determining any case in the High Court.

He added that if Justice Atuguba had taken pains to read the case, he would not have made such pronouncements.

This, he noted was because “the case evolves interpreting Article 94 (2A) which has not received any authoritative pronouncement from the Supreme Court”, adding that the issue of Res Judicata et non quieta movere does not apply because it was not on the strength of Article 94 1A.

This, he says therefore gives the Supreme Court the power to interpret the law which is exactly what they did.

On the other hand, the Director for Conflict Resolution with the National Democratic Congress (NDC), Abraham Amaliba, speaking on the same show, sided with Justice Atuguba in his comments on the Gyakye Quayson case.

ALSO READ:

• Supreme Court ruling on Gyakye Quayson’s case scandalous – Atuguba

• Where Ghana stands now a cause for grave lamentation – Justice Atuguba

Introduction

I feel highly honoured but down spirited by this invitation to lead this lecture today. Mr. Chairman, on the eve of our independence, our country was consecrated to the sacred and Immaculate hearts of our Lord Jesus Christ and our Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary.

This probably explains why Ghana has not experienced major mishaps. The returns from such a consecration are normally inestimable as exemplified in the cases of the United States of America and Israel.

Against this background, where Ghana stands now is a cause for grave lamentation. Ghana is heavily blessed in terms of natural and human resources so one is justified to ask: why the economic and social hardships?

That said, my mandate for this lecture as per my invitation letter is in terms of:

1. Sharing my lived experiences with the Justice delivery system vi-a-vis public confidence in the judiciary.
2. How recent Judicial pronouncements and rulings portend for consideration of Ghana’s democracy.

This is against the backdrop that the African youth are increasingly losing hope in the democratic experiment and are manifesting same by pouring onto the streets to show support for military juntas who overthrow democratically elected civilian regimes.  Indeed, the flyer on this invitation is in even wider terms.

1. My lived Experiences

Everything has a beginning. When I was in form 2 in Notre Dame Secondary School, Navrongo, our Latin master put before us a number of mottos for our choice. Some chose “Orando et Laborando’, ‘Fidelis in Parvo’, etc. I chose ‘Justitia Omnibus and I still love it.

When I commenced my Private legal practice at Bolgatanga in the then Upper Region of Ghana, in August 1975, I soon realized that there was much corruption in the judicial system. By the grace of God, I stayed out of it though it was very challenging. In the web of the 1979 revolution, a neighbor of mine was badly brutalized by some soldiers and he sent for me to hear his story and see his condition.

Despite the heat of the revolutionary atmosphere, I issued a writ against them and they came to seek settlement. Unsurprisingly their terms of settlement centered around smoking the peace pipe in the form of sharing a roasted fowl. I rejected this and kept to the writ.

Unfortunately, their duties in Bolgatanga had ended and they immediately returned to Accra and my attempt to serve them with further court processes received no co-operation from their command structure.

After the 31^st December revolution, I was appointed chairman of the then Upper Regional Investigations Committee and subsequently also briefly, I was the acting special public prosecutor for the same region. In the course of time, a flight-lieutenant from Accra came to Bolgatanga and asked why there were only a few cases for trial by the National Public Tribunal when it came to try cases in the Upper Region. I told him that the crime rate differs from region to region. He then asked about our investigation into the affairs of the then Farmers Services Company (FASCOM) of the Upper Region. I told him that our committee had spent 3 months thoroughly investigating that case and that we were not prepared to change anything. He went away.

In addition, one evening a major of the Ghana Army from the Kamina Barracks in Tamale came to intervene in our committee’s investigation into a case involving his nephew, and his colleague officer who was temporarily stationed at Bolgatanga, introduced him to me that evening. I told him that we would attend to him the next morning. The next morning, I had him called into our committee sitting room and had him sworn. I then asked what was his mission. He could not testify meaningfully. I then addressed him that it was they the Army that launched the revolution to ensure justice prevailed so how could that be achieved if they tried to obstruct the due flow of Justice? He became uneasy and was glad to be told to go his way. He saluted us and left. These are a few episodes.

I found myself appointed from the Bar to the Supreme Court on 30^th November 1995. I soon noticed that public confidence in the Judiciary was of considerable concern in that there were perceptions of corruption and slanted Judicial positions especially constitutional cases. There were frequent calls for the entire number of justices of the Supreme Court to be empanelled on constitutional cases. I propose to try to unearth the causes for these perceptions which were built up over the years. The perceptions were aroused by perceptions of political inclinations on the part of some judges. There is a long history to it. Sometimes the suspicion was anchored on the incidence of political influence. This occurred in various ways to various degrees at various times.

• Political confrontation   

On 20^th April 1970 the Court of Appeal coram Apaloo, Siriboe, Sowah, Anin and Archer JJ.A, gave judgement in Sallah v The Attorney General 2 G&G 739 (2d) 1319. The Court upheld the plaintiff’s claim for a declaration that his employment as a manager with the GNTC had been wrongly terminated by the Busia regime.  This decision meant that well over 350 other persons whose employments were similarly affected could also successfully sue the government. Before the court could hear the case unsuccessful objections on the grounds of bias were raised against Apaloo, J.A (on the ground of close friendship with the plaintiff and Sowah J.A. (on the ground that his brother-in-law’s wife had approached him to help her husband, Jonas, who was similarly affected as Sallah by the termination of his employment). In the evening of that day (20/04/1970) of the delivery of the judgement, an incensed Dr. Busia, the then Prime Minister of Ghana made a Radio Broadcast on this judgement, the full text of which is in 2 G&G 739 (2d) 1374. Inter alia, he fumed as follows at 1378-1379 “if any others who were not reappointed in the recent implementation of the transitional provisions of the constitution wish to sue the government, they are at liberty to do so.

The government will not stop them. But if they hope thereby to coerce the government to employ them, then they will be wasting their time and money. My government will exercise its right to employ only those whom it wishes to employ.

No court can enforce any decision that seeks to compel the government to employ or re-employ anyone. That would be a futile exercise. I wish to make that perfectly clear.”

This outburst flew in the face of article 102 (3) of the 1969 constitution of Ghana, that ‘ in the exercise of the Judicial power of Ghana, the Judiciary in both its Judicial and administrative functions shall be subject only to this Constitution and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any other person or authority’.

 Article 115 (1) and (2) of the said 1969 constitution of Ghana provided as follows:

1. “The Chief Justice shall be appointed by the president, acting in consultation with the Council of State by warrant under his hand and the Presidential seal”
2. ‘The other Judges of the Superior Court of Judicature shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and the Presidential Seal acting in accordance with the advice of the Judicial Council’

Consequent upon this judgement Justices, Azu Crabbe and Apaloo who after Ollennu J.A were the most senior justices of the Court of Appeal, see the list under the heading JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS OF GHANA contained in (1968) GLR, E.A.L Bannerman who had been a Senior Magistrate, the equivalent of a Circuit Court Judge was appointed the Chief Justice of Ghana and K.O. Larbi a private Legal Practitioner and Siriboe J.A (the only judge who ruled in favour of the Busia Administration  were made more senior judges over them on the Supreme Court. What was more V.C.R A.C. Crabbe who in 1968 was the 11^th most senior high court Judge out of a list of 12High court judges (see under Judges of the Superior Courts of Ghana (1968) GLR, was appointed from the High Court to the Supreme Court as a senior over and above Azu Crabbe and Apaloo JJ.A.

The appointments aroused public scrutiny as revealed in BADU v THE REPUBLIC  (1974) 2 GLR 361. The facts of the case as summarized in the headnote are as follows; “the appellant, the editor of a newspaper. The spokesman published a front page editorial commenting on the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court established under the suspended Constitution of 1969, which indicated that the appointments, including that of the first prosecution witness, were improper. The editorial also imputed that the first prosecution witness who was at the material time a High Court Judge, was unfit to hold the post of a Supreme Court judge and that as Interim Electoral Commissioner, he had during the 1969 general elections, misconducted himself by showing bias in favor of the winning party. The appellant was therefore charged with intentional libel arising from the publication, contrary to section 112 (2) of the Criminal Code 1960 (Act 29).”      

Again, the plaintiff in TUFFUOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (1980) GLR634 C.A sitting as the Supreme Court, successfully claimed that even though the 1979 constitution preserved existing offices at the time it came into force, President Limann purported to nominate Apaloo who was the sitting Chief Justice for parliamentary approval, to be Chief Justice anew. Parliament rejected him on very tenuous grounds. Otherwise Apaloo C.J. would have been ousted and the Limann government would have had a free hand to pick the Chief Justice of his liking with its attendant implications.  

President Limann also made a similar radio broadcast as Busia had done in 1969, when, as far as I can recollect, Colonel Frank George Barnasko rtd. challenged his scheme of the distribution of essential commodities in court.

Also President Kuffuor in swearing in a Chief Justice of Ghana said that although the Judiciary is independent yet he could not ignore politics and that he must take politics into account. When the Supreme Court ruled the Fast-Track court as unconstitutional President Kuffuor fumed from outside Ghana that he was dissatisfied with the decision and that he would do everything in his power to have it reversed.

Indeed, Justice Kwame Afreh was promoted to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal and was part of the reversing panel on the final decision on the Fast-Track court matter.  Such executive intimidations, not forgetting the unfortunate murder of 3 high Court Judges and a Retired Army Major in 1982, could demoralize the judiciary. As noted in his book Ghana Bar Association Lectures in continuing legal education 1993-1994, the very distinguished late legal scholar, S.Y. Bimpong-Buta, quoted pp.1-3 of the Weekly Spectator No. 1288,28 November 1992 frontpage, which referred to the fact that the New Patriotic Party (NPP), the Peoples National Convention (PNC), the National Independent Party (NIP) and the Peoples Heritage Party (PHP)’s “decision not to contest the results of the presidential elections is based partly on “loss of confidence in the judiciary. In the words of a leading member, of one of the four opposition parties: ‘it will be a waste of time and money to go to court, because the judiciary as at now is not independent: the judges have been so intimidated that there is no way they will rule in our favor against the government’. In fact, the leader of the NPP was quoted as having said that the decision of the party not to challenge the results of the presidential elections at the Supreme court (was on the grounds, inter alia, that ‘the party had no confidence in the Chief Justice and the judges of the Supreme Court’. At p.3 he stated thus: “And quite recently in an article appearing in the Ghanaian Chronicle, Professor Paul Ansah of the University of Ghana (now deceased) was able to assert that: ‘We know that with the kind of a de facto one party system that we have, Parliament may not be able to do much, and with an enfeebled, emasculated and compromised judiciary, the prospects don’t look too bright..”

Though the author subsequently states that the said loss of confidence in the Judiciary was not justified, this is not entirely correct. In Republic v. National Public Tribunals, Ex parte office of the Special Public Prosecutor (1993-94) 1 GLR 478 S.C, the special public prosecutor applied to the supreme court for directions to the National Public Tribunal concerning a review application before it. At pp486-487 the very distinguished Adade JSC felt compelled to say thus “the proper party to apply in this case is the People or the Republic. The office of the special public prosecutor is none of these. If the special public prosecutor had mounted a full blown action under article 2 of the constitution 1992, that is enforcement of the constitution provision, perhaps different considerations might arise. For the present, however, its locus standi is questionable. Nonetheless, as this case raises constitutional issues of some importance, I propose to deal with it on the merits, and not dismiss it, justifiably, on the foregoing grounds, and risk being accused unjustifiably, of deciding it on so- called technicalities, even if those perceived technicalities are part of the laws which the courts are enjoined to interpret and enforce.”

JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS OF EXECUTIVE INTRUSION OF THE JUDICIARY

In (1980)12 R.G.L at pp. 2-3 Apaloo CJ in paying tribute to the late Akuffo -Addo C J and President of Ghana said “For a lawyer of his caliber, elevation to the bench was a matter of course. To most lawyers, that is the culmination of a successful legal career. It came in 1962 after he was in the law for 22 years, having been called to the bar in 1940.

Such honour was deserved much earlier. That it did not come to him quicker, cannot be explained by want of merit but by the political alignment of the day. But when it did arrive, its undue delay was acknowledged because he made history by being appointed together with lawyer R.S. Blay, to the then highest court of the land namely, the Supreme Court, by-passing the High Court in the process.

He was not destined to remain long in that court because ironical as it seems, one of the treasured qualities of a judge which he possessed and exhibited, became his undoing. He had the courage of his conviction and spoke his mind firmly in a judicial decision which displeased the then power in the land. He was dismissed in February 1964, having been on the bench for less than two years. But merit, like cork never remains submerged.

Just over two years afterwards, he was returned to the bench to fill its highest office Chief Justice. He remained in that office till August 1970 when he was invited to occupy a still higher office- the Presidency of Ghana. On the whole, he occupied high judicial office for just over 5 years and did so with great distinction’.

 In New Patriotic Pary v Inspector General of Police (1993-94) 2 GLR 459 at 469 to 470, SC Amua-Sekyi JSC, commenting on the statutory reversal of an acquittal and retrial of certain leading personalities on a charge of treason, bluntly said:

“Acquitted in proceedings intituled State v Otchere (1963)2 GLR 463, SC the verdicts were set aside by executive order: See Special Criminal Division Instrument, 1963 (EI 161). Put back on trial before a more pliant bench, the executive had the satisfaction of seeing them convicted and sentenced to death. Mercifully, the sentences were not carried out; but a grave precedent had been set. The judges were not spared: Korsah CJ was removed from office, and a constitutional amendment cleared the way for the dismissal of Adumoa-Bossman J (as he then was) and other judges whose loyalty to the Absolutist State was now called in question.” (The emphasis is ours).

Again, in Wuaku v Attorney-General (1993-94) 2 GLR 393 at 396, SC Amua-Sekyi JSC trenchantly stated as follows:

“After the overthrow of the Nkrumah regime, the judiciary came in for much criticism for the role it had played while the previous government was in power. It was said that it had departed from its traditional role as an independent arm of government and had become a willing tool of repression in the hands of the executive. It was also said that some of the appointments to the bench had been politically motivated in that persons with known sympathies for the regime had been favoured over those who exhibited an independent frame of mind. Worse still, it was said that some of the judges had become so depraved and demoralized that they habitually took bribes. The answer of the new administration was the wholesale dismissal of judges – cleaning the Augean stables, as it were- and appointing new ones to take their place. But it was soon realized that merely changing personnel would not be enough: what was required was a reappraisal of the role of the judge in the body-politic and the creation of the conditions necessary for the proper exercise of his functions.” (The emphasis is ours).

In Hasen v Ankrah (1987-88) GLR 639 at 667, SC Sowah JSC said:

“Before I am done, I consider it ethically and judicially unacceptable the comments on the composition of the panel in this appeal. If my brother Taylor JSC had reservations, he should have made them abundantly clear before hearing and not after opinions have been rendered which are contrary to his own. And in any event the judges referred to are by all standards, including their knowledge of the law and integrity, competent to adorn the Supreme Court bench. It is by sheer accident of past politics that they have not taken precedence over some members of the Supreme Court.” (The emphasis is ours).

This long-standing skepticism of the independence of the Judiciary and now the Supreme Court, in particular, led to the issuance of the following Practice Direction on empanelling of Justices of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) SCGLR 586 as follows:

“PRACTICE DIRECTION

PRACTICE IN EMPANELLING JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT 10 January 2001

Practice and procedure – Supreme Court- Constitutional cases – Empanelling of court by Chief Justice – Practice in – Chief Justice to empanel all available justices of the Supreme Court or at least seven justices in constitutional matters – Rationale for empanelling all available Justices of Supreme Court in such matters – Constitution, 1992 arts 125 (4) and 144 (6).

It is provided by the Constitution, 1992, arts 125 (4) and 144 (6) that:

“125 (4) The Chief Justice shall, subject to this Constitution, be the Head of the Judiciary and shall be responsible for the administration and supervision of the Judiciary.”

“144 (6) Where the office of the Chief Justice is vacant, or where the Chief Justice is for any reason unable to perform the functions of his office (a) until a person has been appointed to, and has assumed the functions of, that office; or (b) until the person, holding that office has resumed the functions of, that office; those functions shall be performed by the most senior of the Justices of the Supreme Court.”

(In exercising the functions of the office under articles 125 (4) and 144 (6) of the 1992 Constitution, His Lordship, the Ag. Chief Justice, per his letter dated 10 January 2001 addressed to all the Justices of the Supreme Court and copied to the Judicial Secretary and the Registrar of the Supreme Court, directed as follows:)

“In order to minimize the mounting criticisms and the persistent public outcry against the Judiciary in our justice delivery and to restore public confidence, it is my desire that where practicable and especially in constitutional matters, all available Justices of the Supreme Court have a constitutional right to sit, or at least (7) justices of the court.

In view of the above and in the instant case (ie. Republic v High Court, Bolgatanga and Hajia Fati Seidu; Ex parte Hawa Yakubu, Civil Motion No 2/2001), by virtue of the powers conferred on the Chief Justice by article 125 (4) and on me by article 144 (6), I have decided that Hon Justice Sophia Akuffo and myself, ie Hon Justice E K Wiredu, Ag Chief Justice, be added to the justices already panelled. (The emphasis is ours). Signed. Hon MR. Justice E K Wiredu Ag Chief Justice.

(Editorial Note: In pursuance of the above Directive, a panel of seven Justice of the Supreme Court, coram: Edward Wiredu Ag CJ, Adjabeng, Acquah, Atuguba, Sophia Akuffo, Lamptey and Adzoe JJSC in Republic v High Court, Bolgatanga, Ex parte Hawa Yakubu, CM No 2/2001, on 16 January 2001 unanimously granted (reserving the reasons), the application by Madam Hawa Yakubu for an order of certiorari to quash the proceedings and order of the High Court, Bolgatanga dated 6 January 2001, in an electoral petition resulting from the 7^th December 2000 Parliamentary Elections for Bawku Central Constituency. In the respectful view of the Editor, the above Practice Direction, issued by His Lordship the Hon Ag Chief Justice, is to be most welcomed by all members of the Bench and Bar and the general public; and it may also be considered as very appropriate and long overdue. The Practice Direction, in the form of a letter to all the Justices of the Supreme Court, makes the empanelling of the Supreme Court for the determination of the constitutional cases more transparent; and more importantly, the Direction is in line with the democratic aspirations of all Ghanaians and the sustenance of the Rule of Law in the country. It has also the obvious merit of insulating and freeing the high Office of the Chief Justice from all imaginary and unproven but disturbing allegations of political bias in the empanelling of the Justices of the Supreme Court SYBB.”

This skepticism, as noted at pages 48-49 of Dr Date-Bah’s formidable book, Reflections on the Supreme Court of Ghana, Wildy, Simmonds & Hill Publishing (2015), has persisted under the current Chief Justice. He thereat states as follows:

“The Chief justice’s power to empanel judges confers on him or her, arguably, the opportunity or potential to influence the outcome of particular cases. The Chief Justice’s knowledge of an individual judge’s track record on particular issues or his or her judicial inclinations on particular issues may give the Chief Justice this potential. This, rightly or wrongly, has attracted unfavorable comment from people in political circles, in relation to politically controversial decisions. It is in reaction to such comments that Chief Justice Georgina Wood decided that she would, during her tenure, empanel, as a matter of practice a bench of nine justices to hear all constitutional cases.

On this current practice, the Constitution Review Commission commented that it finds in regard to Ghana’s judicial practice that no law has ever prescribed the maximum number of Justices of the Supreme Court that should sit on a case brought before the Court, though it has been the practice to specify the quorum. It has noted that this is a deliberate policy on the part of the law makers to allow the highest court a certain flexibility and freedom in deciding when to field a full complement of members depending on the gravity of the case and the need for a reconsideration of the law. It acknowledges that this practice has helped ensure that in the adjudication of matters of importance, as many judicial minds as possible would be involved in settling the law and making a definitive pronouncement. In this regard, the Commission commends the emerging practice by which 9 justices of the Supreme Court are empaneled to sit on constitutional cases.” (The emphasis is ours).

The legal colossus, Dr. Date- Bah JSC (Retired), at page 201 of his said book has further observed as follows:

”A perception and conviction by the public of the Supreme Court’s impartiality between parties in its adjudication is vital to its fulfilment of its broader role. Nevertheless, there has in recent years been a degree of controversy in the media as to the impartiality of the judiciary in general in disputes between the Government (by which is meant the Executive) and the individual. This has been a challenge that the Supreme Court, along with other courts, has had to live with. The challenge has arisen from the highly competitive nature of Ghanaian party politics in the last decade and the perceived tendency for a party in government to prosecute politicians belonging to opposition. The court has been caught in the middle of this conflict and in their endeavour to do justice between parties before them have incurred the wrath of political party activists of the governing party who have alleged that the judiciary is biased against the government. The best response to this challenge is for the conduct of the judiciary to manifest its indubitable impartiality.” (The emphasis is ours).

On the other hand, Dr Date-Bah JSC (Retired) in his aforementioned book states at 211-212 regarding this matter thus:

“The mode of appointment of Justices of the Supreme Court is specified by article 144 of the 1992 Constitution. It provides for their appointment by the President, acting on the advice of the Judicial Council, in consultation with the Council of State and with approval of Parliament. Thus, both the executive and the legislature are involved in the process. 

The intention of the framers of the Constitution, as confirmed by practice, appears to be that nominations should be made by the Judicial Council, although the appointment is by the President. The names of nominees recommended by the Judicial Council are forwarded to the President who places them before the Council of State for their views. If the views of the Council of State are not negative, the President then forwards the names to the Speaker of Parliament for Parliamentary vetting. 

It should be noted, however, that Presidents in the Fourth Republic have not considered themselves bound by the advice of the Judicial Council in relation to nominations for appointment to the Supreme Court. Presidents have on occasion refused to accept some nominees recommended by the Judicial Council. ——–Under a Constitution on the Westminster model, such as that in force in Ghana between 1957 and 1960, the Governor-General was obliged to follow the advice given him on judicial appointments.

However, this convention and understanding have not survived into the Republican era. Ordinarily, Presidents tend to accept the nominees of the Judicial Council as, it has to be remembered, the Attorney-General (the President’s principal legal adviser) and four nominees of the President serve on the Judicial Council. The President thus has ample opportunity to influence the nominations by the Judicial Council. ——–Furthermore, because the constitutional provision requires parliament’s prior approval, Parliament has a veto power over the appointment of any Supreme Court Justice.

JUDICIAL COMPROMISE OF INDEPENDENCE

Sometimes the judiciary gives the impression that it is giving an undue advantage to the executive. In NATIONAL MEDIA COMMISSION v. ATTORNEY GENERAL (2000) SCGRL1 the national media commission complained to the attorney general that the president was usurping their clear authority under Article 168 of the 1992 constitution of Ghana “to appoint the chairmen and other members of the governing bodies of public corporations managing the state-owned media in consultation with the president.” When it was unheeded, it sued the attorney-general in the supreme court for a declaration in January 1996. However, it was not until November 1999 that the suit was listed for hearing and judgement was given in favor of the plaintiff on 26^th January, 2000 by which date the then President Rawlings had left office after two presidential terms of office! This trend has continued in very recent times. Thus, in Ghana Centre for Democratic Development & 8 others v. Attorney General, as Amegatcher JSC delivering the judgement of the Supreme Court, stated, Judgement was delivered in this case on the 21^st May, 2023. Long after Mr. Domelevo had been pushed out of office. Coincidentally, it was on the same day that the Supreme Court also delivered judgement in the case of Prof. Kwadwo Appiagyei -Attua & 7 others v. The Attorney-General. In this case the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the Imposition of Restrictions Act, 2020 (Act 1012) which was enacted in consequence of the deadly Corona Virus (Covid 19) Pandemic 

It can unhappily be said that the Supreme Court acted unconstitutionally and in bad faith when it inordinately delayed in delivering judgement in the National Media Commission v Attorney-General, as well as the Domelevo and Covid-19 cases for short. This is because it is the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court to enforce the constitution forthwith when it is breached. That is the mandatory duty under article 2 (1) of the constitution. Thus in Gbedemah v Awoonor – Williams 2 G&G 739 (2nd) 1167 at 1175 Azu Crabbe J. A (as he then was) said:

The pith of the plaintiff’s claim as expressed in paragraph (8) of his statement of claim is that on 5 September 1969 the defendant took his seat as a Member of the National Assembly, notwithstanding the fact that he was not qualified so to do by virtue of article 71 (2) (b) (ii) and (d) of the Constitution, and that the defendant intends to continue to sit in the said National Assembly. If the matter rests here, then prima facie there has been an infringement of the Constitution, and an alleged threat to continue such infringement. This would constitute a mischief, and it would become the inescapable duty of the Supreme Court to suppress it by enforcing the Constitution.”

In the National Media Commission, Domelevo and Covid-19 cases the Supreme Court failed to suppress the mischiefs of the infringements of the Constitution for an inordinate period of time. The entertainment and determination of the James Gyakye Quayson’s case (Michael Ankomah Nimfah v James Gyakye Quayson and two others) WRT NO J1/11/2022, 17^th May 2023 by the Supreme Court is quite unfortunate though the Court, in my humble view was misled by the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Sumaila Biebel (No.1) v. Dramani and Anoher (2011) 1 SCGLR132.

Even there the Biebel case was not, unlike the Gyakye Quayson case, determined on its merits by the High court and the Court of Appeal.

However, the determinative consideration is that the constitution has clearly assigned post parliamentary election matters to the High court under article 99 and post presidential election matters to the Supreme court. These provisions are specific whilst the provisions of Articles 2 and 130 are general and therefore verba generalia specialibus non derogant. This is particularly so since In re parliamentary elections for Wulensi constituency; Zakaria v Nyimakan (2003-2004) 1 SCGLR 1 has decided (though I disagree with it) that post parliamentary election matters end at the Court of Appeal level.

It is so in some other jurisdictions. Common sense is also a rule of the construction of statutes, therefore since parliamentary elections occur in as many as 275 constituencies in our country, the constitution could not have reasonably contemplated and provided for post parliamentary election matters should be litigated in the centralized Supreme court unlike the singular and unitary post presidential elections. If it is the consideration that the constitutional breach cannot be left unredressed after the 21 day period for presenting a parliamentary election petition, can it also be argued that after the 21 days period under article 64 (1) of the 1992 constitution, a person can bring an action under articles 2 and 130 of the constitution to invalidate a presidential election? And except otherwise provided by the constitution under article 130 (which comprehends article 2 also), the jurisdiction of the Supreme court, is exclusive of all other courts, how can the supreme court have concurrent jurisdiction over any matter with another court, which is the implication if the supreme court purports to adjudicate post parliamentary electoral matters alongside the High court?

There are instances in which it may be felt that some members of the judiciary pay allegiance apparently to the executive or otherwise instead of to Ghana. Despite the clear provisions of article 146, a very knowledgeable chief justice of Ghana wrote on two occasions to a justice of the supreme court terminating his tenure as a supreme court judge on the ground of ill health without complying with the said article 146. On being shown the letters by the judge concerned I strongly exhorted him to reply them raising the contravention of article 146. The same chief justice indirectly suspended me for 6 months by not empanelling me on any case immediately after I maintained my solo dissent in Tsatsu Tsikata v. The Republic when it came up for review by the Supreme Court. Before I curtail this issue, the same Chief Justice sidelined me as the then realistic most senior justice of the Supreme court contrary to article 144 (6) who should act as the Chief Justice in his absence. I felt that since the Supreme Court is the custodian of the constitution, I could not condone its infractions.

I therefore assumed the functions of the Chief Justice with clearance from the then most senior justice who was then very seriously indisposed and handicapped until I got to know from him very shortly afterwards that he had become fit enough to act as Chief Justice upon the death of the then incumbent Chief Justice.

It is this event which led Kweku Baako, a very prominent journalist, to state on a radio program that in the bid for the post of Chief Justice, I declared myself as the acting Chief Justice, but when the said most senior justice of the supreme court got wind of it, he said “You lie, I can act”. When I heard that allegation I was gravely hurt since I have never in my life made any move to be appointed the Chief Justice of Ghana because I consider lobbying for a position as a corrupt act since it involves compromising one’s conscience.

CONSTITUTIONALISM IN GHANA

These sorts of things do not augur well for constitutionalism in Ghana which it is the primary duty of the courts to ensure. Our 1992 constitution has ordained constitutionalism for Ghana.

This is plain from particularly articles 1,2, 3 and 35 of the constitution which provide inter alia for the sovereignty and welfare of the people of Ghana, the supremacy and enforcement of the constitution and the blessings of democracy. Constitutionalism has been well explained by some eminent jurists in Ghana.

In his very able book, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF GHANA: TEXT, CASES AND COMMENTARY, Prof. E. Kofi Abotsi states at page 32 thus “Constitutionalism as a concept can be defined as the limitation placed on the exercise of legal and political power. The concept of constitutionalism is peculiarly important for African countries given the long-standing experience of dictatorship, anarchy and misrule on the continent. As corollaries, constitutionalism and responsible government have been said to be mutually re-enforcing.

Constitutionalism promotes responsible government in the sense that it compels government to act in a manner consistent with the expectations for the conferment of power and respond to feedback from the citizenry.

In this context, one can accept that constitutionalism is a welfare- oriented concept to the extent that it seeks to ultimately champion the welfare of the governed by ensuring that governments exercise conferred powers in the best interest of the governed”.   Also in his thoroughly researched book, THE NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW OF GHANA: FROM THE GARDEN OF EDEN TO 2022, Prof. Raymond Atuguba states at page 2 as follows: “The mere existence of a constitution is not enough for proper governance. A constitution can lead to constitutionality or constitutionalism. Constitutionality is the rule of law at the constitutional level; no matter what the content of the law is that rules. 

Constitutionalism on the other hand is good governance or people-centered governance at a constitutional level. With constitutionalism, there is limited government, people-centeredness, protection of minority and other rights, fairness, justice, equity.

In countries such as the United States which practice constitutionality and not constitutionalism, a constitution exists along side social concerns like racism, gender inequity and the prisons industrial complex. These are incompatible with the countries that practice constitutionalism”.

See also Prof. Date- Bah’s very scholarly book; Selected Papers and Lectures on Ghanaian Law page 76.

The appointment of judges particularly of the Supreme Court as the fulcrum of constitutionalism and the Rule of law has its hiccups. It is the Judicial Council that recommends suitable lawyers or judges for eventual appointment by the President.

Sometimes some judges are recommended by the Judicial council to the Supreme Court over and above more experienced and senior judges even though they are not more competent and experienced than their seniors.

Often when there is regime change, some of the sidelined senior judges now get recommended for appointment to the Supreme Court through the same Judicial Council, but they then become juniors to their earlier juniors by reason of their later appointment. In practice, however, these later appointed judges often write the unanimous or lead judgements in difficult cases shortly after their appointment to the Supreme Court. Certainly, eyebrows can be raised over such practices. What can be the justification for such things?

Nonetheless, depending to some extent on the Judicial season the Judiciary has deepened constitutionalism in Ghana, notably the nullification of the 31^st December holiday celebration funded from public funds, the freedom of choice of independent counsel by state bodies instead of the Attorney-General, despite Article 88(5) where there is conflict of interest, see Amegatcher v Attorney-General (1) [2012] 1SCGLR 679, National Media Commission v Attorney-General, supra.    

As stated by Professor Date-Bah in his said book at pp.17-18: “constitutionalism is about having limits to the powers of constitutional bodies and enforcing those limits. The judiciary, through its exercise of the power of judicial review, is accordingly a vital actor in this process. The Ghana Supreme court has been quite effective in protecting the legal framework of the liberal multi-party democracy whose grundnorm is the 1992 constitution. An example here would be appropriate. To my mind, this case illustrates the contribution of law to the development in Ghana. At first sight, the case (Ahumah Ocansey v Electoral Commission; Center for Human rights and several liberties v The Attorney -General and the Electoral Commission (2010) SCGLR 575), which was decided by the Ghana Supreme court, would appear to have little to do with law and development.

The main issue raised in the case which in fact consisted of two consolidated cases, was whether prisoners were entitled to vote. In spite of article 42 of the 1992 constitution, which provides that every citizen of Ghana of 18 years of age or above and of sound mind has the right to vote and is entitled to be registered for the purposes of public elections and referenda, the Attorney -General had argued in this case that it was in the public interest that convicted offenders are punished, kept under lock and key and not allowed to vote. The Supreme court rejected this contention and held that there was no justification for denying prisoners their unqualified right to vote. This right was conferred on all adult Ghanaians who are sane by article 42 of the Constitution. As I said in that case: “nothing in the core values and spirit of the 1992 Constitution justifies the restriction on prisoners’ right to vote, that is advocated by the learned attorney-general. There is thus no basis for implying the restrictions argued for by the Attorney-General to qualify the clear and unambiguous language of article 42”.    

However, it is lamentable as pointed out by Prof. Raymond Atuguba in his said Sterling book that ‘Notwithstanding the Supreme Court departed from the preposition espoused by Date-Bah, in the Osei Boateng Case, decisions of the Court after that departure still create doubt as to the current legal position. In some of these subsequent decisions, the Supreme Court seemed to be toeing the line of Date-Bah JSC in the Osei Boateng Case, by declining Jurisdiction to enforce the Constitution on the ground that the constitutional provisions sought to be enforced were clear and unambiguous.

Notable cases are Mayor Agbleze v Attorney General and Asare v Attorney General and General Legal Council. Some other subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court have followed the reasoning in Noble Kor v Attorney General. This turn of events creates a cloud of confusion and inconsistency in our jurisprudential space, making it difficult for one to tell the direction of flow of our country’s constitutional law in this area. This must be a cause of worry to students and practitioners of Constitutional Law.”

REALISTIC INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY

I want to emphasize that there is a vast chasm between independence of the judiciary in theory and its independence in practice. Thus, as explicitly stated by Dr. Dat-Bah in his aforementioned book at page 90 “Independence of the judiciary has two dimensions: the institutional and the personal. Personal independence relates to the commitment of individual judges to the judicial values that ensure their impartiality and fairness. I am here referring to values such as eschewing corruption and not allowing ethnic and other particularistic considerations to affect judicial determinations.

Institutional independence of the judiciary, on the other hand, relates to the constitutional, statutory, and other arrangements put in place to assure the independence of the judiciary. Issues that are customarily dealt with under institutional independence include: separation of powers; security of tenure for judges, including appropriate provisions on the appointment process of judges, the conditions of service of judges and the process for the removal of superior court judges; financial and administrative autonomy of the judiciary; and measures are what make judicial independence justifiable. It would be unacceptable to have independent but unaccountable judges.

SUMMARY

The James Gyakye Quayson’s decision by the Supreme Court is with all due respect scandalous in that the court, in the teeth of the settled maxim Res Judicata et non quieta movere, re adjudicated the same matter that has been adjudicated upon by the High court on the merits. All that was left was its execution according to court processes. Again the stress laid by the court on the statutory processes for  acquisition and renunciation of citizenship shot it self in the foot.

If the certificate of renounciation is so mandatory and conclusive why was it not conclusive in its effect to qualify Gyakye Quason when he received it, dated 26^th November 2020, whereas the parliamentary election was held on 7^th December 2020?  Statutes, judgements, and documents must always be applied with consistency both in the letter and spirit.

These must always be construed holistically and as instruments of justice since it is a well settled principle that the duty of a court is to do justice and a court should not be turned away from doing justice.

In the 2013 presidential election petition (2013) SCGLR (Special Edition) 73 at 141 I stated as follows: ‘Again in Osman v Tedam (1970) 2 G & G 1246 (2d) CA and Osman v Kaleo (1970) 2 G&G 1380, the Court of Appeal held that though the respondents were members of the Convention Peoples Party whose constitution made all Members of Parliament of the Convention Peoples Party members of the party’s Regional Executive Committee that did not without more, make the respondents members of such committees and therefore disqualified to contest the 1969 Parliamentary Elections, which they had won.

The decision in Osman v Kaleo   is even more striking. Though the respondent had secured exemption from disqualification from contesting the parliamentary elections, it was submitted that since his exemption had not been published in the Gazzeet, upon which publication it will have effect, under paragraph 3 (5) of NLCD 223, 1968, the same was inoperative, notwithstanding that under paragraph 3(7) of that Decree, the decision of the Exemptions Commission was final and conclusive. The court of Appeal rejected that contention”.

Again in JUSTICE DERY v TIGER EYE PI AND OTHERS (2015-2016) 2 SCGLR 816, the Supreme Court unanimously held that though the impeachment process against the plaintiff was published in contravention of Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution that could not vitiate the crucial impeachment procedures against him. In other words the substantial and more important provisions on the removal of a corrupt judge could not be diverted by the incidence of the unconstitutional publication of the impeachment petition.

Similarly, then the certificate of Renunciation dated the 26^th November 2020 was more important than the anterior participation by Gyakye Quayson in the parliamentary campaigns between 5^th and 9^th October 2020 when he filled his parliamentary nomination papers with the electoral commission. The Supreme Court does not stand in good light, with all due respect in disqualifying Gyakye Quayson despite his clear certificate of Renunciation of his Canadian Citizenship as from 26^th November 2020. By analogy also, in CLOSSAG v ATTORNEY GENERAL AND 2 OTHERS (2017 -2018) 1SCGLR 210, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a member of the Civil Service or Local Government Service can join a political party but cannot actively participate in politics or hold office as a political party nominee or remain in the Civil Service after election as a member of the District Assembly.

In other words, the operative evil to guard against is membership of the District Assembly not the contest for the same. Similarly, therefore, the operative evil to guard against about a dual citizen is, as regards parliament, his actual membership of it, not just the campaigns. That is why in the Gyakye Quayson’s case, his renunciation of Canadian citizenship certificate dated 26^th November 2020 is the operative consideration. In any case it will be noticed that his certificate of citizenship is tied to an Oath pf allegiance. The 2 move together, the letter and the spirit. It is difficult to think that Gyakye Quayson who submitted his Renunciation of Citizenship Papers to Canada in 2019 could still in December 2020 be held as seriously owing allegiance as a matter of hard realism as opposed to formalism, to Canada. In the King David example I cited in Asare V Attorney General (2012), 1 SCGLR 460, his Israelite citizenship became of real concern to the Philistines when going into actual war with Israel.

CURRENT PUBLIC IMAGE OF THE JUDICIARY IN GHANA

The current public image of the Judiciary in Ghana is reflected on Social Media. For example, GHANAIANS ARE LOSING CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM by Dr. Lawrence as published on ghananewsonline.com on the 16^th of October, 2023. Founder of the Diaspora Progressive Movement in the (USA), Dr. Lawrence Appiah, has said that Ghanaians are losing confidence and hope in the ability of the Court to administer Justice in the country. He accused the New Patriotic Party (NPP) government of appointing cronies to the Judiciary.

In a recent interview with ghananewsonline.com.gh, Dr Lawrence claimed that President Nana Addo Danquah has deliberately appointed Judges who are in bed with him in order to skip accountability. In a statement signed by Dr. Lawrence and circulated on social media, he said in Ghana, the Judiciary is gradually becoming a thin god, allowing them to pass some outrageous judgements. He argued that some of the judgements passed by some notable courts in the country leave much to be desired. In Ghana today, the birth certificate is not a legal document to prove that someone is a Ghanaian. Meanwhile, the birth certificate is the base document used to prepare a Ghanaian passport which is used to travel the entire world. He emphasized that the Judiciary is packed with NPP inclined Judges because this government has carried out a deliberate policy of putting their people onto the bench to frustrate Ghanaians.

He further said, it will take a new leader like John Mahama in the next NDC administration to lead the process to repair what he describes as (badly dented image) of Ghana’s judiciary for people to win the trust in the system.

In his opinion, the deteriorated image of the Judiciary easily sparks laughter from the citizenry when one decides to go to the court for justice, adding that it is of the scariest  existential threats to any democracy when citizens think their judiciary holds no value for them or no use to them, and this is the security threat that the National Security apparatus tried to draw the attention of the nation to recently but was poorly received by the president.

He added that such lawlessness in the country threatens the peace and stability of Ghana’s democracy and must be quickly corrected (because) if pragmatic measures are not taken, it will get to a stage where people will have no qualms about taking the law into their own hands because they do not have the confidence that they can get any justice in the system.

Dr. Lawrence writes: The dangers of our current judiciary

During the hearing of Hon. Gyakye Quayson’s case after the 2020 elections, the lower courts ruled that he was not supposed to go to parliament whiles his case XXX. The Supreme Court ruled the member of Assin North, Hon. Gyakye Quayson, after he was elected by his constituents, that not only should he not be able to represent his constituents, they went further to order parliament to strike his name from parliament records as if he never entered parliament. During the recently ended limited registration exercise by the Electoral Commission, the NDC and some Civil Society Organization filed a motion at the Supreme Court to stop the EC from conducting the exercise.

The Chief Justice came and set a hearing date for October 17, 2023. Meanwhile, the whole limited registration exercise ended on October 2, 2023. During the hearing of Hon. Gyakye Quayson’s case after the 2020 election. The lower court ruled that he was not supposed to go to parliament whilst his case was ongoing. At the same time, another lower Courts hearing the case of the MP for Techiman South, ruled that the people of Techiman South need a representative in parliament, so while the case was ongoing, the MP could still represent his people. The case is now stalled in that court.

This same outrageous court agreed with the Attorney General that after |Hon. Gyakye Quayson’s had been elected the second time to parliament was to appear in court every day for hearing. The case has become inactive when the minority in parliament resolved to join their colleague in court.  When the executive needs a reform, the President is changed. When the legislative needed reform, the Speaker was changed. When the Judiciary needs a reform, the Chief Justice needs to be changed. If Nana Addo could remove the Electoral Commissioner, the Auditor General and it was good, so should John Mahama be able to remove the Chief Justice. We need serious reforms in every institution including the NPP. This is one of the reasons Ghanaians want him to be President again.

I heard for talking too much, the Paramount Chief of Dormah Traditional Council and a High Court Judge, Osagyefo Agyeman Badu II has been transferred from the Greater Accra to the Volta Region. (Ghanaians are not angry enough).

Second example is: MIKE OCQUAYE CALLS FOR APPOINTMENTS AND REMOVAL OF JUDGES as published on myjoyinline.com on the 28^th of April 2022 where it was reported that Prof. Aaron Michael Ocquaye, the former Speaker of Parliament, has called for reforms in the appointments and removal of Judges as provided for in the 1992 constitution to strengthen the country’s Judicial system.

Prof. Ocquaye said the case of Justice Amoah Sekyi gave the country the lesson that where the executive was bend on removing a Judge, it was easier to do so than meets the eye. xxxx

On the appointment of Council of States Members, he suggested the need to introduce institutional representation and not allow the President to choose his advisors because the 1992 Constitution gave the President too much power in the appointment of the members. We need to adopt the recommendation of the Committee of experts which provided that ‘the Council of State shall aide and counsel the president, the Council of Ministers, Parliament and other organs of state in the performance of their functions under the constitution or under any other law (sec. 3.i))’, he said.

In pointing out all these matters, I am not oblivious of the very difficult tasks of interpreting our 1992 constitution amidst the several decisions and dicta of the Supreme Court. But it is important that there be great reflection on the core issues and principles which should be the basis for decisions of the courts instead of the lesser considerations which tend to arouse suspicions, speculations and concerns in the body politic.  

CONCLUSION

In view of all this what matters mot is the realistic auditing and restructuring of the Judiciary and indeed all other governmental institutions because just as the cyanide of illegal mining galamsey has devastated our forest lands and poisoned our water bodies so also has the cyanide of Political Corruption poisoned our Governance Institutions.

Appointments to the Judiciary or any other governance institution must be made by thoroughly independent bodies based on nothing but merit and not on things like protocol, cronysm, ethnicity, or other improper considerations. The governance institutions particularly the Judiciary must be realistically insulated against presidential and other political pressures. Service conditions must be reasonably attractive and security of tenure of office must be enshrined. The Executive Powers of the President and his functionaries must be drastically curtailed. There must be real separation of parliament from the Executive branch. The emphasis should be on good and sincere governance in the interest of the people and not on hollow over exaggerated notions of electoral conferment of power on any body or group of persons.

But no meaningful political reforms can be reasonably expected even under a regime change without sustaining the Political Renaissance which has started and is growing well in Ghana.

It is for this reason that I would like to acknowledge, encourage, and congratulate nationalists like Kwasi Pratt, Dr. Arthur Kennedy of the USA, Dr. Gyampoh of the University of Ghana, Prof. Bokpin of the University of Ghana, Prof Agyeman -Duah of the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD), recently Dr. Asare-Baah rtd, formerly of the Political Science Department, KNUST., Kwame Pianim, Dr. Nyaho-Nyaho Tamakloe, Kelvin Taylor of the USA (though he should desist from insults), Emmanuel Wilson Jnr. The Chief Crusader Against Corruption in Ghana. I don’t know most of these people I have mentioned personally but I have followed their works on social media, and I am impressed, however I hope that they will remain nationalistic no matter the regime in power.

I also wish to acknowledge some of the many Civil Society Organisations such as Ghana Centre for Democratic Development, Ghania Integrity Initiative, Citizen Ghana Movement, Africa Centre for Energy Policy, Parliamentary Network Africa, Penplusbytes, Media Foundation for West Africa, Send Ghana, One Ghana Movement, Centre for Democratic Development, Democracy Hub, Occupy Ghana, and Institute for Democratic Governance. I regret I cannot recall all of them but nonetheless, none of them should feel excluded.

Mr. Chairman, invited guests, media friends, ladies, and gentlemen, permit me once more to show my appreciation to all of you, including the organisers for this platform and the hearing,

God bless our homeland Ghana and lead us to the promised land.

Thank you.

Justice Atuguba has described the ruling as scandalous.

Speaking at a public lecture on Tuesday, the retired judge asserted that the Apex Court shouldn’t have even taken up the case.

This, according to him, was because it was already been adjudicated by the High Court, adding that it goes against the basic principle of law.

The outspoken judge argued there should have been an execution of the High Court’s decision and not a fresh matter.

“The James Gyakye Quayson’s decision by the Supreme Court is with all due respect scandalous in that the court, in the teeth of the settled maxim Res Judicata et non quieta movere, re-adjudicated the same matter that has been adjudicated upon by the High court on the merits,” he stated.

Additionally, he said the Apex Court failed to deliver justice when it nullified Mr Quayson’s election when he had clearly 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,” he added.

BACKGROUND:

The Supreme Court, on May 13, 2023, ordered Parliament to expunge Mr Quayson from its records.

The presiding judge, Justice Jones Dotse, ruled that the Electoral Commission acted unconstitutionally in allowing him to contest the 2020 parliamentary elections without proof of him renouncing his Canadian citizenship.

The court in a unanimous decision ruled that Mr. Quayson was not qualified at the time of filing his nomination forms. It further held that the Electoral Commission allowing him to contest when he had not shown evidence of renunciation of his citizenship of Canada is unconstitutional.

It further declared that his election was unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.

ALSO READ:

• Supreme Court orders Parliament to expunge Gyakye Quayson’s name

• Gyakye Quayson not treating Supreme Court properly – Chief Justice

An Accra High Court on Thursday said it does not find KT Hammond guilty of contempt following some comments made regarding the outcome of Mr Quayson’s trial.

Speaking in an interview after the ruling, the Adansi Asokwa MP said freedom of speech won in the contempt case.

“The judge was very articulate to the point, very legal in her analysis, very clear and in the end, freedom of speech has been vindicated. I want the lawyers of Gyakye Quayson to understand that you don’t take KT Hammond to court as a victim, as stated by his lawyer, Abraham Amaliba.

“He [Mr Amaliba] stood here, at the forecourt of this very building and told the whole world that they decided to institute this application against me as a victim, and I am no one’s victim at all. They should go back and read the rudiments of the law,” he told Accra-based TV3.

Mr Quayson’s lawyers had asked the High Court to punish Mr Hammond for saying James Quayson may as well leave Parliament since he would end up in jail.

Their application followed an interview the Minister granted to Oyerepa TV during which he compared the Quayson case to that of late former legislator, Adamu Sakande.

But the presiding judge, Justice Mary Yanzuh said the lawyers for Mr Quayson did not produce the full interview to enable the court convict the accused.

ALSO READ:

• My comments on Gyakye Quayson’s trial were not prejudicial – KT Hammond

• Gyakye Quayson’s contempt case against K.T Hammond dismissed

James Gyakye Quayson, who was the National Democratic Congress (NDC) parliamentary candidate for the Assin North by-election, emerged victorious in the polls.

At the end of the by-election on June 27, 2023, Mr Quayson polled 17,245 votes representing 57.56 percent of the total votes cast to beat Charles Opoku of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), and Bernice Enyonam Sefenu of the Liberal Party of Ghana (LPG).

Charles Opoku polled 12,630 votes, representing 42.15 percent of the total votes cast in the hotly contested by-election, while the LPG’s Bernice Enyonam Sefenu polled a paltry 87 votes (0.29%).

Gyakye Quayson, who won the seat in the 2020 polls with 17,498 votes, was kicked out of Parliament for having dual citizenship prior to filing his nomination forms.

The Assin North seat became vacant after the Supreme Court ordered Parliament to expunge Gyakye Quayson’s name from its records in a ruling on May 17.

The Supreme Court ruled that Mr Quayson was not qualified to contest the 2020 parliamentary election in the Assin North Constituency at the time he filed his nomination forms on October 9, 2020.

Prior to the by-election, there were counter-accusations of vote-buying by the New Patriotic Party and National Democratic Congress (NDC), during the by-elections.

But speaking in an interview with Umaru Sanda Amadu, on Citi TV’s Face to Face, Mr Quayson rubbished claims that he gave out money to voters to influence their voting pattern.

According to him, the items shared amongst voters were geared towards their needs, adding that they had already made a request before the by-election.

“I never gave out money for votes, if I gave anything, it was logistics geared towards the needs of the people. I gave out machetes for their farms and weedicides. I don’t call that vote buying. These are items I wish I could get for them, maybe the timing. If it’s the timing you are talking about, I don’t even think it’s a problem. Even last week, we got some Wellington boots and weedicides from the government’s Common Fund, and I went to distribute them. In fact, I just came back just yesterday.”

“We have to explain the process and how certain things happen. Consider an MP who has been restricted for over a year, 14 months to be precise. Until the time of the by-elections, April 2022 until June 2023. My engagement with them could even be perceived as breaching the law. Don’t carry yourself as an MP, and suddenly the opportunity avails itself, there was a by-election. The people had already expressed some of the things they needed, I will never give them what they don’t need”.

The Assin North MP stated that the items he dashed out to the voters were things he had listed to give to his constituents.

“I had a list of communities that needed boreholes, community centres and all the items they needed, so I focused on those lists. For the past 14 months, I couldn’t do it, and I said here is my list, this is what I can do for the people”.

ALSO READ:

• Assin North bye-election: Asiedu Nketia justifies LGBTQI propaganda against NPP

• Assin North: John Boadu reacts to money sharing allegations against NPP

• I never engaged in money-sharing at Assin North – Ntim Fordjour

“The daily trial began during the 2023 campaign. I interpreted it as an attempt to prevent me from campaigning and winning the seat. That was the best they could do. I never believed that the government could be involved in the judiciary, but now I am convinced.”

“An AG can just walk into court and request that the file be moved. Before, it was mostly every two weeks, but suddenly they say I have to come every day. In fact, I was on the campaign trail. I went from my constituency to court from 12pm to 2pm, and then I was back in my constituency by 4pm to campaign until about 11pm,” he said on Accra-based Citi TV.

He admitted that the daily trial put some pressure on him, but it did not affect his chances of winning the seat.

“During the elections, the pressure of the daily trial was there, but that daily trial didn’t work. I even joked that they could give me a chamber in the court, and I would still win the seat. I didn’t have to be on the grounds,” he asserted.

Asked if he was not afraid of ending up in Nsawam prison, he said, “Why should I be? I believe in the justice system. The fundamental issue in any judicial matter is whether or not the person intended to commit the crime. Did he plan it? I have not planned anything of the sort.”

During the campaign period for the Assin North by-elections, Mr Quayson was ordered to face a daily trial.

He had been commuting from his constituency to the court on a weekly basis until the trial was moved to a daily basis.

The Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, argued that, given the charges against Quayson, he could be convicted and jailed if found guilty, hence the need for an expeditious trial.

The legislator formally requested that the General Legal Council (GLC) initiate disciplinary measures against the Attorney General.

Quayson’s request stems from allegations of professional misconduct levelled against Mr Dame in the context of his ongoing criminal trial in the High Court.

ALSO READ:

• Gyakye Quayson drags AG to General Legal Council

• Gyakye Quayson to personally cross-examine prosecution witness if…

• Gyakye Quayson not treating Supreme Court properly – Chief Justice

The High Court has ruled that nothing stops it from proceeding with the case despite multiple legal processes filed at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

The legislator is standing trial for allegedly committing offences including perjury and forgery.

The court had earlier indicated it will hold its hearing on a day-to-day basis. Mr Quayson has since been pushing to set this aside causing him to file legal processes at the Court of Appeal.

He also filed another action at the Supreme Court making a similar request adding that the Attorney General has failed to furnish him with the full complement of evidence to be used against him.

“We have filed an application for a stay of proceedings that has been set for Wednesday the 19th of July at the Court of Appeal. We have also filed in the Supreme Court, a motion invoking the supervisory jurisdiction for an order directed at this court to quash the decision made on the 16th of July and another to prohibit the court from proceeding with the case,” lead counsel for the MP Tsatsu Tsikata earlier told the court.

Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, disagreed with this view and pointed out that the court should proceed since no order has been issued by either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.

“Respectfully, the prayer before you is without any basis. And I am not surprised he has not referred you to any rule of law. It is an attempt to deny the court the right to hear the case. It is an attempt to prevent the continuation of the trial and I pray the court to disregard the request,” he stated.

The court presided over by Justice Mary Yanzuh, ruled that in the absence of any court order halting proceedings, the court will proceed with the case.

Joyce Bawa Mogtari said the prosecution of Mr Quayson by the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice is needless and must be stopped immediately.

According to her, the state’s scarce resources should be expended on pressing issues that affect daily needs for the Ghanaian people. 

In a tweet on Wednesday, July 12, the former Deputy Transport Minister advised the government and the A-G to end the trial. 

“Wait a minute! I strongly believe it is time for the government to put an end to this needless waste of taxpayers’ money on the hate prosecution of the MP for Assin North.”

“We should be focusing our resources on more pressing issues that affect our country,” she tweeted. 

She, thus, asked other well-meaning Ghanaians to add their voices to the call. 

Madam Bawa Mogtari said the loud voices will compel the A-G to file a nolle prosequi to end the prosecution. 

“I urge all well-meaning Ghanaians to join in calling on Nana Akufo-Addo and his AG to file a nolle prosequi and bring an end to this case once and for all.

“Let’s work together to make our voices heard and demand a fair and just outcome,” she concluded her tweet. 

Wait a minute! I strongly believe it is time for the government to put an end to this needless waste of taxpayers' money on the hate prosecution of the MP for Assin North. We should be focusing our resources on more pressing issues that affect our country.

— Joyce Bawah Mogtari (@joyce_bawah) July 12, 2023

Mr Quayson was ejected from Parliament following a Supreme Court decision to uphold the annulment of the 2020 constituency election by a High Court.

Despite facing a criminal trial over the same dual citizenship allegations that took him out of Parliament, Mr Quayson won the Assin North Constituency seat again with a wider margin of 17,245 votes representing 57.56% of valid votes.

He is also accused of deceiving a public officer and knowingly making a false declaration when he filed nominations to contest in the 2020 election when he had not renounced his Canadian citizenship.

However, a motion of stay of proceedings his lawyers filed at the High Court was on Tuesday, July 11, dismissed. 

This was after the High Court ruled that his trial will be held on a daily basis. 

Citing that it was a good call to solidarise with their colleague, Mr Boamah indicated that their actions have affected parliamentary business.

“The Minority is exercising their rights under the laws to go and solidarise with our colleague Hon Quayson who was sworn in a week ago. I want to entreat the Minority to reconsider their decision because Hon Quayson is duly represented by very experienced lawyers who can fight his case for him.

“It is very important that we also get measured with what we do with regards to our responsibilities as Members of Parliament. And as duty demands of us, we ought to be in the chamber to represent the people who voted for us. Yes, you can show solidarity but you should not forget about your responsibility as Member of Parliament. So it’s a right, it’s a caucus decision, it’s a party decision I respect it but I’m entreating them that there ought to be a limit to what they do especially when we have business on the floor.”

The Minority had forewarned that the side will boycott parliamentary sitting anytime Mr Quayson is scheduled for court to show solidarity.

Mr Boamah, a Committee Chair was unable to present a report to the House due to the low turnout and its inconclusiveness.

Mr Quayson is facing criminal charges brought against him after he lost his seat as Member of Parliament for Assin North for allegedly failing to renounce his dual citizenship status before filing to contest the 2020 parliamentary elections.

His application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed by an Accra High court on Tuesday, July 11, 2023.

Lead counsel Tsatsu Tsikata has announced the intention to file an application with the Court of Appeal, seeking a stay of proceedings.

Lawyers representing the embattled MP have submitted a request for the court to halt proceedings, allowing the Court of Appeal to review the trial judge’s decision to conduct the case on a daily basis.

ALSO READ:

• Minority boycotts Parliament again as Gyakye Quayson heads to court

• NDC MPs boycott parliament to support Ato Forson, Quayson in court

Mr Hammond has said he is ready to meet his colleague MP in court.

In the writ filed on Monday, July 10, Mr Quayson’s lawyers said the Trade Minister has made “irresponsible prejudicial comments” concerning the criminal case ongoing against him.

Addressing the media on Tuesday, Mr Hammond stated he referenced that there was a precedent to Mr Quayson’s case.

“I am not sure if those lawyers understand what precedent is, but I think I predicated my statement on the fact that there is what in legal terms called the precedence, so we are meeting in court. They played a game on me to serve me with the document, but I have accepted it.

“I made a statement here in parliament so if they want to take me up in court yes of course at the end of the day that is where these matters end up. So what is the big deal about this?”

Gyakye Quayeson trial: I'm unfazed by the contempt case filed against me. – KT Hammond #JoyNews pic.twitter.com/S4pLdtyyaj

— JoyNews (@JoyNewsOnTV) July 11, 2023

The Assin North MP is being tried for forgery and perjury after he was charged by the Attorney-General’s Office.

He is also accused of deceiving a public officer and knowingly making a false declaration when he filed nominations to contest in the 2020 election when he had not renounced his Canadian citizenship.

Mr Hammond, commenting on the case, stated that his colleague lawmaker will be found guilty and jailed. 

ALSO READ:

• You will go to prison – KT Hammond tells Gyakye Quayson

• Gyakye Quayson cites K.T. Hammond for contempt

According to him, he used to get very emotional and in tears anytime he mounted a podium to address constituents ahead of the June 27 bye-election.

This, he explained, was as a result of his ongoing trial which was affecting the Assin North constituency.

However, his victory has strengthened him to withstand all the odds that may arise in his political career.

Mr Quayson made these remarks while addressing Assin North constituents during a thanksgiving service to mark his re-election on Sunday.

“From 2020 till the day we held the elections, many of you realised I get emotion whenever I stood in front of you to speak and it was because I was worried about what my people were going through.

“God has blessed us and has been grateful. I, James Gyason will not cry again because you have made me, Assin North, Ghana and Africa victorious,” he said amidst loud cheers from the people present.

In a bye-election held on June 27, 2023, Mr Quayson beat the NPP’s Charles Opoku to retain the seat for the NDC.

He had 57.56% of all votes cast while Charles Opoku got 42.155 of votes cast. The Liberal Party of Ghana’s Bernice Sefenu got 0.29%.

The exercise was necessitated by a Supreme Court ruling that the Electoral Commission (EC) acted unconstitutionally in allowing Mr Quayson to contest the 2020 parliamentary election without proof of him renouncing his Canadian Citizenship.

The apex court, therefore, ordered parliament to expunge Mr Quayson’s name from its records as a Member of Parliament as his election and swearing-in were unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, on the back of this declared the seat vacant with the EC directed to hold a fresh election.

Meanwhile, Mr Quayson is still facing charges of perjury and forgery bothering on whether he had renounced his Canadian citizenship at the time he filed his nomination forms to contest the 2020 polls.

There are currently calls for the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, to discontinue the case.

ALSO READ:

• MP calls for closed-door discussions on Gyakye Quayson’s trial

• Gyakye Quayson trial: I never supported Dormaahene’s call for nolle prosequi – Ayikoi Otoo

In the writ filed on Monday, July 10, the lawyers say the Trade Minister has made “irresponsible prejudicial comments” concerning the criminal case ongoing against the Assin North MP. 

“That in an interview on 4th July 2023 on a TV station, Oyerepa TV, the Respondent categorically pronounced the accused person guilty of the charges for which he is standing trial in this court, and the Respondent went ahead and stated that the Accused/Applicant will go to prison.

“That by the words of the Respondent which have been widely publicised nationally and internationally, the Respondent is violating the right of the Accused/Applicant to be presumed innocent as well as the right of the accused to a fair trial.

“That the said words of the Respondent are also in contempt of this Honourable Court as they are extremely prejudicial to the lawful process of this Honourable Court.”

The Assin North MP, Mr Quayson, is being tried for forgery and perjury after he was charged by the Attorney-General’s Office.

He is also accused of deceiving a public officer and knowingly making a false declaration when he filed nominations to contest in the 2020 election when he had not renounced his Canadian citizenship.

However, he has filed a motion on notice at the High Court for a stay of proceedings, pending an appeal.

But Mr Hammond is reported to have stated that his colleague lawmaker will be found guilty and jailed. 

Mr Obeng said that the Minority Caucus has every right to solidarize with their colleague but still have the responsibility of representing the people of Ghana who elected them.

“I find this declaration by the minority leader in parliament quite unfortunate. In the sense that first of all, proceedings in parliament are not only made up of public business as in the business of the government of the day. It also has the component of what is called in the parliamentary parlance ‘Private Business’ which are among other things issues of a Member of Parliament asking questions to a particular minister on issues relating to roads, electricity and education in his or her constituency among other matters of urgent concern to the constituents and private members bill,” he said on Accra-based 3FM.

He noted that from the history of parliament, close to 90% of questions are filed by the Minority in any parliament.

“Are we now being told that in the coming days the Minority members are going to shirk their responsibilities to ask parliamentary questions on behalf of their constituents on days the court case is going to be heard?” he quizzed.

Mr Obeng stressed that it is extremely important that the Attorney General, Godfred Dame, does not use his office to frustrate the work of a sitting Member of Parliament or issue threats that have the potential of affecting all the people and the businesses.

He recommended a conversation between the political class and leadership of the court to explore the option of hearing Mr Quayson’s case on Mondays since parliament sits from Tuesday to Thursday or probably schedule the hearing to when parliament goes on recess in August so that the MP’s work is not impeded.

” Mr Quayson must not be stampeded from doing his work especially when his people have been denied representation for so long but also in the quest to defend that, other constituencies who are represented by Minority MPs must not have their representation rights suffering because their MPs are leaving for the court,” he admonished.

Minority Leader, Dr Cassiel Ato Forson, stated on the floor of Parliament on Tuesday 4 July 2023 that the Minority MPs would abandon parliamentary proceedings to accompany their colleague Mr Quayson everyday he appears in court.

ALSO READ:

• Quayson’s application for stay: President Akufo-Addo’s audio played in court

• Gyakye Quayson’s stay of proceedings application adjourned to July 11

• NDC MPs boycott parliament to support Ato Forson, Quayson in court

The Minister for Justice and the Attorney-General cannot be allowed to walk away with his penchant of talking down on the sovereign people of Ghana using threats and intimidation to suppress citizens’ right to free speech in criticizing the weaponisation of the process of criminal justice administration entrusted to his care under Article 88 (3) & (4) of the 1992 Constitution with the spurious rhetoric in the name of citizens running “extremely prejudicial commentary on cases pending before the courts”.

The power and discretion of the executive branch to enter a nolle prosequi at any stage of any pending criminal proceeding before judgment, is derived from the prosecutorial powers and discretion of the Attorney-General under Article 88 (3) and (4) of the 1992 Constitution and Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 30). The citizen is, therefore, empowered under the Constitution to hold the exercise of that power, like any other executive power, to the test of transparency and accountability through free speech.

The attempt by the Attorney-General through the press release dated 4 July 2023 to use the smokescreen of “prejudicial commentary on cases pending before the courts” to gag the citizens’ fundamental rights and freedoms to challenge the weaponization of the criminal justice system within the investigatory and prosecutorial process to perpetrate the autocratic governance of the Akufo-Addo regime is now becoming suffocatingly oppressive and unbearable.

 The Attorney-General insinuated that legitimate criticisms of the investigatory and prosecutorial functions of his office “unduly interferes with the work of State Prosecutors performing their constitutional function of prosecuting crime in Ghana” without pointing to any provision under the 1992 Constitution which proscribes the sovereign people of Ghana from holding to account State Prosecutors who allow themselves to be misused to abuse the very prosecutorial constitutional function they purport to perform in aid of an oppressive Government whose aim is to weaponize the system of criminal justice administration to achieve electoral political objects in an election cycle. 

Any Attorney-General is deemed to be a person who approaches the duties imposed upon his office under Article 88 (3) and (4) with deep humility and in his quiet and reflective moments engages in reflexive thinking. Consequently, one expects the Attorney-General to have realized that the “members of the legal profession of considerable standing” he alluded to in his press release have within them men and women who hold convincing considered opinions and disagree professionally and ethically with the weaponization of the investigation and prosecution of the processes of criminal justice administration under his watch. 

These “members of the legal profession with considerable standing” include his predecessor Attorneys-General from both political divides who have exercised the discretionary power embodied in the concept of nolle prosequi and know better that an advocacy or appeal to the Attorney-General or the President as the repository of the executive power to order the entry 

of a nolle prosequi in a criminal case pending in court cannot be prejudicial to the administration of justice. 

The above position is vindicated by the late eminent Ghanaian jurist, Justice of the Court of Appeal, Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Ghana, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Justice A N. E. Amissah, writing, in his Criminal Procedure In Ghana, (repeating a truism every seasoned prosecutor knows), that: “The power of the Attorney-General to discontinue a case by the entry of a nolle prosequi or withdrawal is political in nature. No law prescribes the conditions under which it should be exercised or requires that he explain the reasons for doing so….” 

What vested interest does a fair and impartial judiciary hearing a criminal case have in any decision of the Attorney-General to discontinue an action with the entry of a nolle prosequi that a public advocacy for such an action constitutes an interference in the trial of the case?

Is the Attorney-General saying that there is any superior court judge in Ghana who has not achieved the level of maturity and experience to distinguish between urging the Attorney-General to enter a nolle prosequi in a case and comments prejudicial to the administration of justice? 

In the United States of America today one of the most current constitutional disagreement is the indictment of former President Trump by the Department of Justice (DOJ) leading to more scathing criticizing of the DOJ and the Biden administration for weaponizing the administration of justice without threats of persecution by the DOJ hanging over the necks of the eminent lawyers and enlighten citizens for exercising their rights to free speech.

The Americans also have the right to equality before the law and free speech enshrined centuries ago into their Constitution which we adopted in the 1992 Constitution. The United States Attorney-General has never dared to threaten citizens’ right to free speech for urging the executive branch to be decent and exercise prosecutorial discretion in a certain manner.

It is a total insult and slap to the Ghanaian public for the Ghanaian Attorney-General to do so. 

On the same day, 4 July 2023, that the Attorney-General mimicked the President and issued his autocratic press release, the Chiefs of Assin North held a press conference and appealed to the President and the Attorney-General to exercise the nolle prosequi discretion in favour of the beleaguered Member of Parliament for their Constituency following the 27 June 2023 by-election there.

The minority in Parliament on the same day also served notice in the following form to the public: “I wish to serve notice that the entire minority group will accompany our colleague to court today and any other day that he is to appear in court…We are solidarising with our colleague, I urge the government to listen to the good people of Assin North and do the right thing.”

This is exactly what reasonable and experienced former Attorneys-General anticipated and tried to preempt by urging the Government to consider entering a nolle prosequi in the case. 

The Chiefs of Assin North and minority in Parliament have virtually repeated the same thing “the members of the legal profession with considerable standing” had said. They also expressed solidarity with the Dormaahene, President of the Bono Regional House of Chiefs and Paramount Chief of Dormaa Traditional Area, Osagyefo Oseadeeyo Agyemenag Badu II who in his capacity as a traditional ruler had made a similar earlier appeal.

The people of Ghana are consequently waiting with bated breath to see the Government and the Attorney- General implementing the Attorney-General’s threats and intimidations of citizens by 

persecuting the Assin North Chiefs and the minority in parliament for the exercise of their right to free speech, assembly, and movement under the Constitution. 

Mr. Godfred Dame, the Attorney-General should always remember that no condition is permanent and that the Chiefs and people he is threatening and intimidating now are the very people he met on his way up and would meet on his way down when he ceases to be the Attorney-General.

As a protégé of Nana Akufo-Addo whom he trained from his law firm of Akufo-Addo, Prempeh & Co and appointed as Attorney-General, the perceptions of his independence and impartiality in that office has to be earned by his positive conduct and not by negative perceptions or suspicions that he is being used by the President to weaponise the Office of the Attorney-General against political opponents. 

Ghana shall always endure and win with patriots defending the Constitution no matter what Governments do. The words of William Shakespeare in Macbeth ought to be a reminder to every Government and continue to serve as a warning to all tyrants and would-be tyrants: 

“….But in these cases, 

We still have judgement here; that we but teach 

Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return 

To plague the inventor; this even-handed justice 

Commends the ingredients of our poisn’d chalice 

To our own lips….” 

Patriots, lets continue to defend the Constitution for, Freedom and Justice shall prevail in the end. Salutations to all patriotic citizens! 

Martin A. B. K. Amidu 
July 5, 2023 

According to the writ filed by his attorney, the ruling was based on basic errors of the law. 

They are, thus, asking the apex court to review its earlier judgment which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. 

“The judgment of the Supreme Court was fundamentally and basically in error in ordering Parliament to “expunge the name of 1st Defendant…” without giving the IS Defendant, the affected party, a hearing and with no consideration as to the constitutionality of such a direction having regard to the constitutional structure and procedure of Parliament.

The said order of the Supreme Court was per incuriam article 97(1)(e) of the Constitution.

“The judgment of the Supreme Court was fundamentally and basically in error in totally misrepresenting the previous decisions of the Supreme Court in Sumaila Bielbiel v. AdamuDramani &Attorne-General (No. 1) [2011] 1SCGLR 132 and applying misrepresentation of that decision to the totally different circumstances of this case.

“The judgment of the Supreme Court was fundamentally and basically in error in totally misrepresenting the decision of the Supreme Court in Asare v. Attorney-General [2012] 1SCGLR 460.

“The Court was fundamentally and basically in error in assuming jurisdiction to interpret article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution after it had determined that the Supreme Court had previously interpreted the provision,” excerpt of the writ said. 

The apex court on Wednesday, May 17, ordered Parliament to expunge James Gyakye Quayson from its records as a Member of Parliament.

Presiding Judge, Justice Jones Dotse, ruled that the Electoral Commission (EC) acted unconstitutionally in allowing him to contest the 2020 parliamentary elections without proof of him renouncing his Canadian Citizenship.

A private citizen, Michael Ankomah Nimfah, had succeeded in getting the High Court to nullify Mr Quayson’s election in 2020, after suing him for standing for elections as a dual citizen which was against the law.

Mr Nimfah asked the court to rule that upon a true and proper interpretation of Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution, 1992 of Ghana, at the time Mr Quayson filed his nomination form in October 2020 to contest the 2020 Parliamentary elections for the Assin North Constituency, he was not qualified to contest a member of Parliament.

This provision of the constitution provides that a person shall not be qualified to be a Member of Parliament if he owes allegiance to a country other than Ghana.

After the High court ruling, the Supreme Court also in a unanimous decision ruled that Mr Quayson was not qualified at the time of filing his nomination forms.

It further held that the Electoral Commission allowing him to contest when he had not shown evidence of renunciation of his citizenship of Canada is unconstitutional.

However, the newly sworn in MP says the apex court’s ruling was an error in law.

Johnson Asiedu Nketia has said the decision is a step in the right direction.

Speaking on Accra-based Okay FM, he stated it enforces the original position of the NDC on the trial of its Assin North MP, Mr Quayson.

“Everybody knows the position of the NDC on the way the government is handling Gyakye Quayson’s case. We see it to be political harassment because the government wants a certain political advantage. We don’t think he has done anything wrong for him to be in court. So the decision of the Minority is a step in the right direction,” he said.

Minority Leader, who doubles as Ajumako Enyam Essiam MP, Dr Cassiel Ato Forson, on Tuesday while welcoming Mr Quayson back to the House after his swearing-in issued the threat.

The decision, Dr Forson, explained is intended to protest what the Minority perceives as ongoing persecution against their colleague.

But Majority Chief Whip, Frank Annoh Dompreh, has indicated parliamentary duties will go on with or without the Minority Caucus.

Mr Quayson is facing criminal charges brought against him after he lost his seat as Member of Parliament for Assin North for allegedly failing to renounce his dual citizenship status before filing to contest the 2022 parliamentary elections.

Meanwhile, there have been appeals for the Attorney General to file a nolle prosequi to discontinue the prosecution.

ALSO READ:

• Halt Gyakye Quayson’s trial – Dormaahene to Akufo-Addo

• James Gyakye Quayson officially sworn-in as Assin North MP

• Minority MPs to accompany Gyakye Quayson every day he goes to court

According to him, as the next prospective government, MPs and leaders of the party will have to be measured in their utterances and decisions.

“In some countries, we have some parties that are permanently in opposition, they don’t have any chance of forming a government.

“Those can act in a way that might be construed as irresponsible but a party that has the chance of forming the next government has to be careful in terms of the actions that it takes,” he said on Accra-based TV3.

This comes after the Minority Caucus threatened to abstain from parliamentary business any single day their colleague, Mr Quayson is scheduled to appear in court. 

Minority Leader, who doubles as Ajumako Enyam Essiam MP, Dr Cassiel Ato Forson, made the comment while welcoming Mr Quayson back to the House.

Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, swore in Mr Quayson as Assin North MP on Tuesday, July 4 following his re-election last week.

The decision, Dr Forson, explained is intended to protest what the Minority perceives as ongoing persecution against their colleague.

ALSO READ:

• Minority MPs to accompany Gyakye Quayson every day he goes to…

• James Gyakye Quayson officially sworn-in as Assin North MP

• It’ll be a good thing to enter a nolle prosequi in…

The apology, according to Mr Nartey, must be rendered to the people of Dormaa and Ghanaians at large as it casts the chief who doubles as a High Court in a bad light.

Speaking at the 10th-anniversary lecture of John Evans Atta Mills, in Sunyani, Osagyefo Agyemang Badu who’s known in judicial practice as His Lordship, Justice Daniel Mensah, said pursuing the case will not contribute to the country’s development in any way.

“As a matter of urgency, I am appealing to the President of the Republic, Attorney General if he has any role to play, that the trial should be aborted,” he appealed.

Again, he expressed worry about the Supreme Court’s ruling which resulted in Mr Quayson being removed from parliament.

The Dormaahene made it clear that he would have taken a divergent stance if he had been part of the panel deciding on the matter.

His comment has, however, not sat well with a section of Ghanaians who have heavily condemned it amidst calls for his dismissal.

A former President of the Ghana Bar Association and Council of State member, Sam Okudzeto, who has demanded the immediate dismissal of the judge has also advised that citizens take up the matter and complain to the appropriate body to keep people in authority in check.

But commenting on the calls, Mr Nartey on Adom FM‘s Dwaso Nsem said it was not necessary as it wouldn’t change what has already been said.

“I wouldn’t have had any problem if he spoke just as a chief but as a lawyer, it is quite prejudicial and can influence the outcome of the matter but his removal wouldn’t change anything because it will not cure commentary on cases in court.

“Instead, he should come back and apologise to the legal institution to which he belongs, the people of Dormaa and also Ghanaians because the comments were unfortunate as someone who stands a chance in the Supreme Court,” he said.

ALSO READ:

• Marrietta Brew jabs Dame over Gyakye Quayson’s trial

• MP defends Dormaahene over comment on Gyakye Quayson

• You’re my friend but I disagree with you – Gary Nimako to Dormaahene on…

This is due to his swearing-in in Parliament after winning the bye-election.

His lawyers were expected to move a motion for a stay of execution on Tuesday as part of an appeal filed at the court of appeal. But ahead of the hearing, Parliament submitted a letter to the court notifying the parties of the swearing-in ceremony.

The Prosecution and defence in the matter, therefore, applied for an adjournment of proceedings which the court obliged and adjourned to July 6.

After the proceedings, the Head of Legal Affairs of the NDC, Abraham Amaliba, expressed satisfaction at the decision to adjourn the case.

He, however, backed calls for the Attorney General to enter a Nolle prosequi into the matter.

Meanwhile, deputy Attorney-General, Alfred Tuah Yeboah, who did not oppose the request for adjournment after proceedings hoped that the act of parliament issuing excuse letters for the accused will not be regular in the trial.

Minority Leader, who doubles as Ajumako Enyam Essiam MP, Dr Cassiel Ato Forson, made the comment while welcoming Mr Quayson back to the House.

The Speaker, Alban Bagbin, swore in Mr Quayson as Assin North MP on Tuesday, July 4 following his re-election last week.

The decision, Dr Forson, explained is intended to protest what the Minority perceives as ongoing persecution against their colleague.

“We wish to serve notice that the entire Minority will accompany our colleague today and any other day that he is to appear in court.

“We are solidarising with our colleague and we will not participate in the business of the House anytime our colleague is in court and we will be withdrawing from the Chamber after this ceremony if the court processes happen today,” he declared in parliament.

Mr Quayson is facing criminal charges brought against him after he lost his seat as Member of Parliament for Assin North for allegedly failing to renounce his dual citizenship status before filing to contest the 2022 parliamentary elections.

Meanwhile, there have been appeals for the Attorney General to file a nolle prosequi to discontinue the prosecution.

ALSO READ:

• Halt Gyakye Quayson’s trial – Dormaahene to Akufo-Addo

• James Gyakye Quayson officially sworn-in as Assin North MP

Officially, Mr Quayson has once again taken his seat and office as the MP for Assin North from today, July 4, 2023.

The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, admitted the oaths of Office in a brief ceremony which was graced by former President John Mahama, National Democratic Congress leadership and other bigwigs.

Mr Bagbin, after administering the oath, congratulated Mr Quayson on his re-election last Tuesday.

The Minority Leader, Ato Forson, in his address welcomed his colleague and assured him of the Caucus’ commitment and support in his prosecution.

With a criminal case against Mr Quayson still pending in court, the Ajumako Enyan Essiam MP threatened that the entire Minority will follow the MP to court anytime he is due and won’t participate in the business of the House.

Majority Leader, Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu, on his part, challenged comments that Mr Quayson was being persecuted but rather says the laws of Ghana ought to be applied.

Also present for the all-white ceremony is the 2020 NDC running mate, Prof Jane Naana Opoku-Agyemang, Prof Joshua Alabi and other leading NDC members.

A party delegation, led by the Chairman, Johnson Asiedu Nketia and other NDC executives, as well as traditional leaders are also present.

The chamber has been coated in mainly white, especially on the Minority side to share in the joy of Mr Quayson.

The swearing-in ceremony is a crucial moment to affirm Mr Quayson’s re-election on June 27, 2023, after being ousted from parliament through a Supreme Court ruling.

He polled 17,245 votes(57.56%), defeating Charles Opoku of the NPP, who obtained 42.15 percent of the votes, and Bernice Enyonam Sefenu of the Liberal Party of Ghana, who garnered a mere 0.29 percent.

ALSO READ:

• Gyakye Quayson’s victory party in parliament (Photos]

• Gyakye Quayson’s win signifies victory in 2024 election – Sammy Gyamfi

The Attourney General expressed concern regarding comments made by high-profile persons like Dormaahene, Oseadeeyo Agyeman Badu II, a High Court judge, who called for the discontinuation of the criminal case against the Assin-North Member of Parliament (MP)-elect urging the AG to file a nolle prosequi.

Mr Dame stated that his office would issue a comprehensive statement to address all the concerns raised which could potentially impact the ongoing criminal trial.

Speaking on the matter, lawyer Banson disagreed with the call by the chief insisting that the case must continue to its conclusion as the law demands.

Nonetheless, he called on Mr Dame to come out quickly with the promised response and that must chart the path for the case, urging him not to be selective.

Mr Banson highlighted that the AG’s statement should also touch on President Nana Akufo-Addo’s “prejudicial” comment on the case during the New Patriotic Party’ s final rally at Assin North prior to the bye-election.

For him, the scale of justice must be balanced in order to satisfy all parties.

ALSO READ:

• Halt Gyakye Quayson’s trial – Dormaahene to Akufo-Addo

• AG rejects Dormaahene’s ‘unhealthy’ comment on Gyakye Quayson’s case

• Dormaahene may have a ‘soft spot’ for NDC – Obiri Boahen

Mr Quayson was elected again as MP after the Supreme Court on May 17, declared that he was illegally elected and must be banned from holding himself as such.

Whilst Mr Quayson is being sworn in, he is expected to be at the High Court to begin his daily trial on the forgery case against him.

Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has described the daily trial as unacceptable. 

“We just have elected a fresh MP and I have to go and swear him in to start his work. The same thing I complained about is still happening. They are chasing after him, and trying to prosecute him, even though, we know that, what they are talking about, there are even more of us who have the same thing, but they are not being prosecuted,” Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin stated.

Mr Quayson was successfully re-elected in a bye-election for the Assin North constituency, garnering 57.56 percent of the total votes cast.

He secured 17,245 votes, defeating Charles Opoku of the NPP, who received 42.15 percent of the votes, and Bernice Enyonam Sefenu of the Liberal Party of Ghana, who garnered a mere 0.29 percent.

The ceremony has been set for 10:00 am at Parliament House.

Mr Quayson won a bye-election at Assin North last Tuesday, retaining the seat for the National Democratic Congress (NDC) with 17,245 of the total valid votes cast.

His closest contender, Charles Opoku of the New Patriotic Party(NPP) polled 12, 630.

The exercise became necessary after Parliament wrote to the Electoral Commission (EC) to declare the seat vacant.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled that the EC acted unconstitutionally in allowing Mr Quayson to contest the 2020 parliamentary election without proof of his renouncing his Canadian citizenship.

The apex court in its ruling ordered parliament to expunge Mr Quayson’s name from its records as a Member of Parliament.

ALSO READ:

• Assin North bye-election: Gyakye Quayson wins with 57.56%

• Gyakye Quayson’s win signifies victory in 2024 election – Sammy Gyamfi

• Victory of Gyakye Quayson humiliates govt – Franklin Cudjoe

Mr Cudjoe made the comment in a Facebook post, stating the persecution was shameful.

To him, the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame must rather commit energy on a daily basis to address the issue of SALL.

His comment comes on the back of proposals made by some Ghanaians including the Dormaahene who doubles as the President of the Bono Regional House of Chiefs, Oseadeoyo Agyeman Badu II for President Nana Akufo-Addo to instruct the Attorney General to halt the criminal trial of Mr Quayson.

The chief, who is also a High Court judge, made the call while speaking at the 10th-anniversary lecture of John Evans Atta Mills, in Sunyani over the weekend

“Honestly, I don’t see the benefits this prosecution will bring Ghanaians. If he is in court, he can’t fulfill his mandate so the president and the Attorney General should do something urgently to end this matter, so we move on as Ghanaians,” he said.

ALSO READ:

• Halt Gyakye Quayson’s trial – Dormaahene to Akufo-Addo

• Victory of Gyakye Quayson humiliates govt – Franklin Cudjoe

Mr. Quayson is facing criminal charges brought against him after he lost his seat as Member of Parliament for Assin North for allegedly failing to renounce his dual citizenship status before filing to contest the 2022 parliamentary elections.

Speaking at the 10th-anniversary lecture of John Evans Atta Mills, in Sunyani, Osagyefo Agyemang Badu. who’s a sitting High Court Judge, known in judicial practice as His Lordship, Justice Daniel Mensah insisted the President should take steps to halt the trial.

“As a matter of urgency, I am appealing to the President of the Republic, Attorney General if he has any role to play, that the trial should be aborted,” he appealed.

He also called on the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame “to as a matter of urgency file a nolle prosequi to end that particular decision.”

According to him, Mr Quayson’s prosecution will add nothing to Ghana’s unity or development.

Meanwhile, the Assin North MP-elect, James Gyakye Quayson has filed a motion on notice at the High Court for stay of proceedings, pending an appeal.

The applicant is praying the court for an order to stay the proceedings in the court pending the determination of the appeal filed in the Court on June 27, 2023.

The Minority in Parliament on Friday held a party to celebrate the victory of its colleague, James Gyakye Quayson, in the just ended Assin North bye-election.

It was a joyous moment filled with smiles as the National Democratic Congress (NDC) parliamentarian clad mainly in white attire came together to celebrate Mr Quayson.

There was a lot to eat and drink as the MPs engaged in hearty conversations and exchanged pleasantries.

The MPs also cut a cake to mark Mr Quayson’s return to the House.

North Tongu MP, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, took to Facebook to share the photos from the memorable event.

The Assin North bye-election was necessitated by the removal of Mr Quayson, the incumbent lawmaker, following a Supreme Court ruling that cited procedural issues surrounding his nomination as a parliamentary candidate in 2020.

Mr Quayson was selected as the NDC’s candidate in a fierce contest against Charles Opoku with analysts predicting a closely contested race, possibly favouring the NPP.

But at the close of polls on Tuesday, Mr Quayson was retained after he polled 17,245 votes representing 57.56% of valid votes.

His main rival, Mr Opoku obtained 12,630 or 42.15% of valid votes to place second, while the Liberal Party of Ghana’s Bernice Enam Sefanu polled only 87 votes or 0.29%.

This follows his victory in the recently held bye-election in the constituency.

The exercise became necessary after Parliament wrote to the Electoral Commission to declare the seat vacant.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Electoral Commission acted unconstitutionally in allowing Mr Quayson to contest the 2020 parliamentary election without proof of his renouncing his Canadian citizenship.

The apex court in its ruling ordered parliament to expunge Mr Quayson’s name from its records as a Member of Parliament.

It further declared that his election was unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect. His swearing-in was equally declared to be unconstitutional.

Subsequently, the Attorney General charged the former MP with forgery and perjury.

Speaking to JoyNews, Mr Quayson, who was in court this morning for his criminal trial, said the electorate within his constituency cannot be swayed by the governing New Patriotic Party.

“When it comes to the people of Assin North, nothing can break us apart. And if they (NDC) want to go for a bye-election 10 times, I will win 10 times. I can assure you that.

“They are not in for money, they are in for real development and what I can say is that I am the first gentleman of Assin North now,” he stressed.

Background

Mr Quayson won the bye-election with 17,245 votes representing 57.56% of valid votes.

His main rival, Charles Opoku of the New Patriotic Party polled 12,630 or 42.15% of valid votes to place second, while the Liberal Party of Ghana’s Bernice Enam Sefanu polled only 87 votes or 0.29%.

In the 2020 Parliamentary election at Assin North, Mr Quayson won with 17,498 votes representing 55.21 per cent as against the then NPP candidate Abena Durowaa Mensah’s 14,193 votes representing 44.79 per cent.

ALSO READ:

• Assin North bye-election: NPP’s arrogant display of vote-buying backfired – Prof. Gyampo

• Nana B apologises to Alan over Assin North rally fiasco [Listen]

The National Organiser of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) has commended the constituents of Assin North in the Central Region for voting for the party’s candidate, James Gyakye Quayson, in Tuesday’s bye-election.

Speaking on JoyNews on Wednesday, George Opare Addo expressed confidence in their candidate even before the official declaration of the results by the Electoral Commission.

“We have comfortably won the election. The Supreme Court of Assin North has spoken to the Supreme Court of Ghana that they still prefer Gyakye Quayson as their Member of Parliament,” he stated.

This follows the Supreme Court ruling which declared the election of James Gyakye Quayson in 2020 as MP for Assin North in the Central Region as unconstitutional.

Supreme Court’s full judgement formed the basis for the removal of Mr Quayson’s name from the records of Parliament.

When asked what led to the party’s victory, Mr Addo stated that the candidate they presented was a likeable candidate, adding that his good works in the constituency spoke on his behalf.

He added that the party and Assin North constituents were solidly behind Mr Quayson because they believed the Supreme Court verdict was unfair.

He added that the Supreme Court’s mishap could only be corrected by sending him back to Parliament to represent the people of Assin North.

“The good people of Assin North saw persecution instead of prosecution, and the injustice that was being meted out to Gyakye Quayson motivated the rank and file of our party. So, everybody was out there to work for Gyakye Quayson,” he said.

ALSO READ:

• Assin North bye-election: CODEO commends EC, Ghana Police, and electorate for peaceful polls

• NDC thanks Assin North for retaining Gyakye Quayson

Assin North National Democratic Congress (NDC) parliamentary candidate, James Gyakye Quayson, has been showered with love from supporters at the ongoing bye-election.

Teeming supporters mobbed him as he made his way to the Assin Bereku polling station where he was to cast his vote.

There were loud cheers from the elated party supporters as NDC National Communications Officer, Sammy Gyamfi accompanied the candidate.

Clad in white Kaftan, Mr Quayson beamed with smiles as he walks with his entourage to the rousing welcome.

ALSO READ:

• Assin North bye-election: Kofi Akpaloo accused of buying votes with ‘tea bread’

• Assin North bye-election will serve as dress rehearsal for our victory in 2024 –…

Watch the video above:

National Democratic Congress’ (NDC) Assin North parliamentary candidate, James Gyakye Quayson, has queried the basis for President Nana Akufo-Addo’s denial of orchestrating his prosecution.

During a gathering of New Patriotic Party (NPP) supporters at Assin Breku, Central Region, the President emphasised that he has consistently respected the independence of the judiciary throughout his tenure.

But Mr Quayson has said he wonders how the President found the need to touch on the matter, especially when no question was posed to him.

Speaking to Adom FM Dwaso Nsem host, CJ Forson, he, however, noted the President has probably heard people accusing him, hence decided to set the records straight.

“I wonder how he found the need to answer such a question at a rally. Nobody posed the question and he decided to answer such? then it means he has heard people talk about it but the point is as an elder in the house when something happens, family members will expect that you act.

“He is the President with his party in power and they are the ones taking me back and forth in court and the young man who took me to court has declared he is NPP. So if someone is doing something and you feel it is wrong, you can even intervene through the appropriate bodies,” he said.

The former Assin North MP stressed, “the action you take today will affect the people you love the most in the future.”

ALSO READ:

• Akufo-Addo denies interfering with prosecution of James Gyakye Quayson

• Gyakye Quayson’s case to be heard on daily basis

Play audio above:

Mr Quayson has said he believes he was diligent and followed all due processes prior to the 2020 election.

He was speaking exclusively in an interview with Adom News’ Chief Jerry Forson.

“The bye-election is a bit surprising because I went through all due processes but it is the Supreme Court ruling and we have to respect the law. Nobody wants to go through this frustration because going up and down with all the time I’m wasting, I could have contributed towards the development and helped my people but I know the people of Assin North will speak,” he said.

Mr Quayson stressed there is no doubt the whole process is a personal vendetta against him.

A bye-election set for June 27 at Assin North has become necessary after parliament wrote to the Electoral Commission(EC) declaring the seat vacant.

This followed a Supreme Court ruling that the EC acted unconstitutionally in allowing Mr Quayson to contest the 2020 parliamentary election without proof of him renouncing his Canadian Citizenship.

The apex court in its ruling ordered parliament to expunge Mr Quayson’s name from its records as a Member of Parliament.

It further declared that his election was unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect. His swearing-in was equally declared to be unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, the NDC is backing Mr Quayson to stand again as their candidate while the NPP has also voted for Charles Opoku to lead them into the bye-election.

ALSO READ:

• Gyakye Quayson’s legal team happy with court ruling

• Assin North bye-election: Why Gyakye Quayson could emerge victorious – Prof Kobby Mensah

Mahama conveyed this assurance during his address to Assin North constituents over the weekend, ahead of the upcoming by-election scheduled for Tuesday, June 27.

Mahama spoke highly of Gyakye Quayson, describing him as a humble, God-fearing individual who respects everyone.

He commended Gyakye Quayson’s accomplishments in terms of personal development efforts, even as an opposition Member of Parliament, and expressed his belief in the potential of what Gyakye Quayson could achieve as a minister.

Mahama emphasized that if he becomes president, nothing would prevent him from appointing Gyakye Quayson to such a position.

The by-election in Assin North was announced by the Electoral Commission following the annulment of the 2020 parliamentary election results in the constituency, in which Mr. Quayson emerged as the winner.

The Supreme Court invalidated the election and ordered Parliament to remove Gyakye Quayson’s name from its records after finding him guilty of holding dual citizenship prior to filing his candidacy for the 2020 elections.

Subsequently, the National Democratic Congress nominated Mr. Quayson as its candidate for the upcoming by-election.

ALSO READ:

• Gyakye Quayson to cater for children of deceased NDC member

• Court: Gyakye Quayson and Tsikata embrace in a touching moment [Watch]

According to Prof. Kobby Mensah, this is based on three key indicators which favour the National Democratic Congress (NDC) candidate.

One of the factors, per his assessment, hinges on the aggressiveness the party has attached to the campaign.

“Judging from how intense they have been in that community,” Prof Mensah believes the odds could be in their favour.

Mr Quayson is facing criminal charges following a Supreme Court ruling that the Electoral Commission acted unconstitutionally in allowing him to contest the 2020 parliamentary election without proof of him renouncing his Canadian Citizenship.

Speaking on Joy FM‘s Super Morning Show, Prof Mensah stressed that recent development since the state commenced the prosecution of the ousted MP has courted some empathy among the constituents in addition to what he had done for the community.

“If you have to stretch it, it looks like there’s quite a lot of empathy on the side based on what he’s done in the community and based on the fact that he’s in court. So you find that from the tapes and the footage that is actually coming from the community. Of course, I could be wrong but it looks like there is no sort of anger against him, and that actually puts him in a good position,” he said on Monday.

Finally, the University of Ghana lecturer believes the sentiment around the performance of the government as a whole is likely to play out in this bye-election.

He explained that the constituents may also be suffering the effects of the economic downturn which may eventually influence their choice in tomorrow’s poll.

“Sadly, there is a general discontent against the government itself. It is not any secret. That is not, you know, anything that people do not know, all of us are very much aware that the government is not in the good books of many people, including the people of Assin North,” he insisted.

“If you take away the demographics, which of course, both candidates actually share the same origin, where they come from and then if you add the other things that I’ve talked about – economic issues and sentiments against the government, obviously the kind of empathy that people are sharing for the MP – I think it puts rather the NDC candidate ahead of the NPP without any poll conducted.”

Mr Quayson is going up against the New Patriotic Party (NPP) candidate, Charles Opoku.

For the constituents, this bye-election represents a pivotal moment in shaping the future of Assin North and Ghana as a whole.

ALSO READ:

• Ben Ephson predicts NPP candidate’s victory in Assin North bye-election

• CODEO deploys 15 Observers for Assin North bye-election

The court ruled that its June 16 order announcing this arrangement was within law and a case for a review had not been made.

“Adjournments are at the discretion of the court and not the convenience of parties.
The order of this court was clearly in line with the law. No where was it demonstrated that the order was contrary to law.

“His rights have not been violated by court for refusing not to give him time to campaign. Mere refusal of the court does not constitute denial of right to fair trial,” the judge stated.

Lawyers for Mr. Quayson had urged the court to review its order insisting he needed time to campaign ahead of the June 27 Assin North By-election.

They provided to the court documents showing statements made by the Attorney General which they insisted prejudiced the case.

Justice Yanzuh however ruled that those statements were not relevant to the issue at hand.

“None of the above grounds has been made to warrant a review. The points raised are not different from those canvassed previously.

“The only new information is the alleged prejudicial comments made by the AG. These assertions are not relevant for me to review my decision.

“Fair trial is against undue delay. It is in the interest of justice that trials are not unduly delayed.”

She thus adjourned proceedings to June 29, July 4 and added that the trial will proceed on a day to day basis afterwards.

These dates were selected due to the unavailability of the specific court room on Mondays, the June 27 By-election and the upcoming Holiday and Martyrs’ day.

Deputy Attorney General Diana Asonaba Dapaah told joynews the decision of the court is consistent with time tested principles of law.

“It sits with what we have always said that it is up to the court to decide the dates for hearing and not at the convenience of an accused person,” she stated.

The embattled MP is permitted to miss the hearing on that day.

Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh, who fixed the date, said Mr Quayson could chose not to attend proceedings on the date set for the ruling. 

Filed by lawyers for Quayson, the motion was praying the court, which had earlier fixed June 20, 21 and 23  to continue the criminal trial, to have the case rather continued after the Assin-North election. 

In the motion, Quayson’s lawyers argued that hearing the case on the said dates would hamper Quayson’s chances in the elections. 

Mr Tsatsu Tsikata added that by offering himself as a candidate for elections, his client, was on a national assignment. 

Speaking in an interview with Starr News, lawyer Amaliba said the directive by the High Court is an affront to Mr Quayson’s human rights.

“What we know is that at the last adjourned date the court ordered that he should be appearing daily, but we think that this is against his fundamental human rights considering that he’s a candidate in the upcoming bye-election.

“So, this order is what we are seeking to vary and more so for the trial to resume after 27 which is the bye-election day. Our application is in reaction to the daily hearing that the court ordered to be done,” he said.

When asked what the NDC will do in the event that the application is not considered by the court, he said “we have a Plan B, but that Plan B cannot be discussed now on the radio. But we shall ensure that he does not attend court on daily basis until the bye-election is over.”

Meanwhile, the hearing of the motion in which Mr Quayson is seeking a variation of orders of the Court to conduct his criminal charges on a day-day-basis has been fixed for Wednesday, June 21, 2023.

This was after the State had indicated to the court that they would need time to respond to the motions filed by the application.

Mr Quayson had pleaded not guilty to five charges of deceit of the Public officer, forgery of passport or travel certificates, knowingly making a false statutory declaration, perjury and false declaration for office.

He has been granted bail and is standing trial.

The Criminal Division of the Accra High Court presided over by Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh had on June 16 directed that the trial be conducted daily upon an oral motion by the Attorney General.

Lawyers of Mr Quayson had prayed the court to adjourn the case to immediately after June 27 because Mr Quayson was involved in a bye-election on June 27.

But their request was turned down.

Dissatisfied with the decision, lawyers of the accused led by Tsatsu Tsikata filed a motion for review or variation of the orders made by the court on June 16.

In court on Tuesday, June 20, when the parties appeared, the lawyers of Mr Quayson prayed for the motion to be moved.

But, Deputy Attorney General, Alfred Tuah Yeboah, indicated to the court that they will need time to respond to the motion and prayed for the case to be adjourned to June 21.

Tsatsu Tsikata

Defence counsel had argued that though the case was fixed for today (June 20) for continuation, the subject matter logically precedes the continuation of cross-examination or further hearings of the case.

Mr Tsikata said, per the affidavit in support of the application, “we referred to extremely prejudicial, unjustified and insulting remarks made by the AG against the accused person while seeking an application for day-to-day hearing of the case between today (June 20) and June 23.

Counsel said, Justin Terriwajjah, his junior had made it clear to the court that the accused is a parliamentary candidate for the bye-election that had been fixed for June 27 by the Electoral Commission.

Mr Tsikata also stated that his junior had notified the court and suggested to the court that the accused be allowed the opportunity to have fair grounds in that election process.

“It is our submission that the device that was being resorted to that there is no proof of service was a way of the AG ensuring the day-to-day appearance of the accused in court,” Mr Tsikata pointed out.

He also pointed to an aspect of the case before the Supreme Court which had been fixed for June 22 which clashes with aspect of the orders.

“We as counsel suggested to the court that we will need time to prepare for the Supreme Court and their request for tomorrow (June 21) would put in effect the orders of the court.”

Mr Tsikata stated that “If they are not ready today (June 20) the case should be adjourned to June 28,” when the bye-election would be over.

He described the comments made by the Attorney General as “irresponsible.”

AG rebuttal

Deputy Attorney General, Alfred Tuah Yeboah, argued that the issues raised in the motion, at short notice do not warrant the request made by the accused.

He stated that the motion was only filed on June 19 and if that is the case, they cannot only appear in court today to argue considering the attacks on the Attorney General.

“What was said was also an attack on the Attorney General and we will need time to respond,” the Deputy AG argued.

He also pointed out that the court had already taken dates up to June 21 before last Friday’s June 16 hearing but only added June 22 and 23 to the already taken dates.

He prayed the court that, “we need time to respond and the motion be adjourned to June 21.”

The Deputy Attorney General also reminded the court that, while adjourning the case for the motion to be heard, the business of the day which was for further cross-examination of the first Prosecution witness should be conducted.

Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh after listening to the parties adjourned the case to Wednesday, June 21 for the motion for variation to be heard.

NDC gurus

The courtroom was heavily parked with officials of the NDC.

Some of the big names from the NDC who were in court were Prof Naana Opoku Agyemang, Mrs Betty Mould Iddrisu, Marietta Brew Appiah Opong, Tony Lithur, Kofi Adams, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, Alex Segbefia, Lawyer Abraham Amaliba among others.

Some sympathizers of James Quayson also stormed the court displaying placards while chanting the name of James Quayson as their preferred choice.

Some of the inscriptions read Assin North loves Hon. Quayson, leave our MP alone, Assin North want Hon. Quayson to lead, Assin North decision Hon. We, the people of Assin North choose Hon. Quayson as our MP, we need Hon Quayson, let our people go free Hon. Quayson among others.

ALSO READ:

• Amaliba accuses AG of insulting Gyakye Quayson [Listen]

• Gyakye Quayson trial: Insulting remarks by Attorney General unacceptable – Tsatsu Tsikata tells court

Quayson, the parliamentary candidate for Assin-North, is currently facing charges of perjury and forgery.

During a campaign event in the constituency, Mahama criticized the court’s approach, highlighting that even murder suspects are not subjected to daily trials.

He argued that Quayson had not committed any crimes such as murder or theft, and his case demonstrated political influence within the judicial system.

Mahama further questioned the basis of the allegations against Quayson, emphasizing that denouncing Canadian citizenship should not automatically lead to criminal charges.

He vehemently stated that Quayson would not be imprisoned.

In response to the trial schedule, Quayson’s lawyer, Tsatsu Tsikata, filed an application with the High Court requesting a review of the order.

The hearing for the motion is set to take place on Tuesday, June 20, 2023.

Previously, the High Court had ruled that Quayson’s trial must be conducted daily, starting from the same date.

Quayson’s lawyer had requested that the trial be postponed until after the Assin-North bye-election, scheduled for June 27, 2023. However, the court denied the request.

Quayson, who won the Assin North constituency seat in the 2020 general election, was expelled from Parliament following a directive from the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ordered Parliament to remove his name from its records after allegations of dual citizenship arose. The state subsequently filed criminal charges against him.

ALSO READ:

• Gyakye Quayson applies to High Court to review daily trial order

• Give me a chamber to sleep in court – Gyakye Quayson to Attorney-General

• Gyakye Quayson ruling: Judges erred big time – Retired judge

He is expected to be in court on Tuesday, June 20, 2023, as his lawyer, Tsatsu Tsikata, moves the motion.

The High Court had earlier ruled that the trial of Mr Quayson, who is facing charges of perjury and forgery, must be heard every day, beginning on Tuesday, June 20, 2023.

The court turned down a request by Mr Quayson’s lawyer to have the trial continue after the Assin North bye-election, which is scheduled for June 27, 2023.

Mr Quayson, who was elected to represent the Assin North constituency in the 2020 general election, was kicked out of Parliament after the Supreme Court directed Parliament to expunge his name from its records.

He was dragged to court for allegedly holding dual citizenship. The state has filed criminal charges against him.

Flagbearer of the NDC, John Dramani Mahama, criticised the High Court’s decision to hear Mr Quayson’s trial every day.

Speaking on Accra-based CTV, the Retired Appeals Court Judge noted that people must take their time to read the judgment.

“Honestly, we must take our time to read that judgment because there are lots of things in there that some of us do not know. What’s mind-boggling is that Gyakye Quayson went for Canadian citizenship on his own; he willingly wrote to the Canadian government to renounce the citizenship.

“Now what our friends are saying is that despite renouncing the citizenship, he must wait till the other state agrees and awards him a certificate before he can fully say he is no more a citizen. All of us here in Ghana know that if Ghanaians become citizens of other nations, it’s only for convenience,” he said.

Justice Duose Rtd continued: “It’s like going for a building permit. You’re done writing the exams, they are done marking, the results are in, and they show you have passed but because you do not have a certificate so you can’t go to school. That’s what has happened.” 

“You’re done writing your exams you’ve passed but because you don’t have a certificate you can’t go to school, you only have a results slip,” he stressed. 

The former Appeals Court Judge, however, indicated that the judges erred in their decision.

“I think so: [the Judges erred] bad time, bad time. I think they erred and the criticisms that are following are constructive, they are in order,” he noted.

“When a Ghanaian goes abroad and attains citizenship and ascends power, we laud the person. When our child [Ghanaian] became finance Minister [Kwarteng in the UK] we all lauded them. Why are you lauding your native who has become somebody in a foreign land and yet your own native has come to do something here, and no,” Justice Duose(Rtd) noted with concern.

“So long as I’m concerned I don’t agree,” the retired Appeal Court Judge said.

He appealed to political commentators to stop the labelling of judges as NPP or NDC judges as they are neutral.

“They shouldn’t say that judge was appointed under Kufuor so when anything Kufuor-related comes he must support or because he was appointed during Atta-Mills’ era, anything Atta-Mills must be supported by him. That’s not how the law works. The judge is neutral the moment he receives his certificate,” he said.

“Like the current Chief Justice, I think she climbed up under all presidents current and past so I won’t agree when people attempt to label her an NPP or NDC judge,” Justice Duose stated.

ALSO READ:

• Criminal case against me smacks of intimidation – Gyakye Quayson

• Gyakye Quayson’s perjury, forgery trial begins June 20, to be heard on day-to-day basis

His remarks come after the High Court in Accra dismissed his motion to stay the ongoing criminal proceedings until the bye-election in Assin North is held.

Mr Quayson’s election as a parliamentary representative for Assin North was nullified by the Supreme Court, and he currently faces charges of perjury and deceiving a public official.

These charges stem from allegations that he falsely denied owing allegiance to any country other than Ghana during the election process.

Speaking in an interview with Woezor TV, Mr Quayson attributed his removal from office to the dynamics within the current Parliament but said the people of Assin North are solidly behind him.

“I think basically, it is an intimidation process because I haven’t seen any criminal trial where an accused person or suspect is arraigned before the court on a daily basis and so we all know that it is an executive influence on the process. The people of Assin North understand the circumstances and situation that I am going through and they also understand that the fight is not about me but about them.”

ALSO READ:

• Gyakye Quayson’s perjury, forgery trial begins June 20, to be heard on day-to-day basis

• We cannot be blamed for Gyakye Quayson’s woes – EC [Audio]

This decision follows the court’s rejection of a request made by Quayson’s lawyer, Justin Terriwajjah, to postpone the trial until after the Assin North bye-election scheduled for June 27.

Presided by Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh, the court has determined to proceed with the trial without delay.

Counsel for Mr Quayson argued that his client’s participation in the bye-election for Assin North was a national duty, as he sought to represent the people in Parliament.

Therefore, they requested the trial to be postponed until after the bye-election to ensure a fair campaign for Mr Quayson.

However, the Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, opposed this argument, emphasising that Mr Quayson had not been assigned any national duty.

The Attorney-General pointed out that considering the seriousness of the charges against Quayson, a conviction could result in imprisonment hence its importance.

The A-G called on the court to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis, starting next week.

Mr Quayson’s lawyer agreed with this but prayed that it is started only after the bye-election.

However, this request was dismissed by the court as it set June 20, 21, and 23 for the trial to continue.