https://www.myjoyonline.com/supreme-court-to-hear-gyakye-quaysons-review-application-today/-------https://www.myjoyonline.com/supreme-court-to-hear-gyakye-quaysons-review-application-today/
National | Politics

Supreme Court to hear Gyakye Quayson’s review application today

The Supreme Court will today hear James Gyakye Quayson’s review application, asking the Court to reconsider its order which barred him from discharging his duties as a Member of Parliament.

The hearing was initially scheduled for Tuesday, May 10, but was adjourned to today.

The apex court, on Wednesday, April 13, in a 5-2 majority ruling, stopped Mr. Quayson from holding himself out as Assin North MP.

The apex court said it had a duty to protect the sanctity of the constitution.

This is until the substantive case was determined against him at the Supreme Court.

“The application succeeds. The MP is restrained from holding himself as MP for Assin North and restrained from attending Parliament to conduct business on behalf of the people of Assin North.

“The restriction remains until the final determination of the substantive matter. We direct that the case hearing be expedited,“ the Court ruled.

https://www.myjoyonline.com/supreme-court-adjourns-gyakye-quaysons-review-application-to-may-17/

However, the embattled MP subsequently filed for a review of the ruling, stating that the ruling was a patent and fundamental error of the law and a breach of portions of Ghana’s constitution.

He maintained that the court's decision failed to appreciate that the suit was in reality an attempt to enforce the decision of the High Court disguised as an invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

https://www.myjoyonline.com/you-violated-the-constitution-by-stopping-me-from-performing-parliamentary-duties-assin-north-mp-to-supreme-court/

“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,” he said in his review application.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.


DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.