Assin North MP files for a review on Supreme Court ruling against him
James Quayson, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Member of Parliament for Assin North has filed for a review at the Supreme Court on a decision barring him from holding himself as MP.
James Quayson, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Member of Parliament for Assin North has filed for a review at the Supreme Court on a decision barring him from holding himself as MP.
In a suit filed by his legal team, they’re seeking the apex court to reverse its earlier decision.
According to the ruling of the court, Mr. Quayson should desist from going to Parliament till further notice.
It said the dual citizenship case against the MP should be concluded before he goes to Parliament.
Michael Ankomah-Nimfa, a resident of Assin Bereku in the Central Region, filed a petition at the Cape Coast High Court seeking to annul the declaration of Mr. Quayson as the MP Assin North.
Below are the reasons for the review application:
a. The majority decision was in patent and fundamental error and violated article 129(3) of the Constitution in assuming jurisdiction over the determination of the validity of a Parliamentary election and proceeding to grant the application for interim injunction.
b. The majority decision was in patent and fundamental error in failing to appreciate that the suit was in reality an attempt to enforce the decisions of the High Court disguised as an invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
c. The majority decision was in patent and fundamental error in granting an order of interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the suit based on a High Court judgment and an earlier High Court interlocutory decision both of which, on their face, violated article 130(2) of the Constitution and, in the case of the judgment, also violated section 20(d) of the Representation of People’s Law, 1992, PNDC Law 284.
d. The majority decision was in patent and fundamental error in granting an order of interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the suit when what the Applicant was seeking by this application was for the execution of decisions in the courts below and this error occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice against the 1st defendant/respondent.
e. The majority decision was in patent and fundamental error in granting an order of interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the suit when the Applicant failed, prima facie, to demonstrate a legal or equitable right that ought to be protected by the court, thereby occasioning a gross miscarriage of justice against the 1st defendant/respondent.
f. The majority decision violated article 296(a) and (b) of the Constitution in exercising discretion unfairly and unreasonably.
