Audio By Carbonatix
Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has reversed his decision after initially ordering that Parliament retain the name of James Gyakye Quayson in its records.
The Speaker expressed uncertainty regarding the clarity of the Court's order and believed that Parliament as a whole should make a collective decision on the matter.
This was after the Supreme Court recently made public the full reasoning behind its decision to declare the Assin North MP's victory unconstitutional.
On May 17, the apex court ruled that Mr Quayson should be expunged from Parliament's records as a Member of Parliament.
But speaking in the House on Thursday, Mr Bagbin explained that "the order did not say the Speaker should expunge [Gyakye Qyayson]."
"It did not say any Member of Parliament or Clerk should expunge [the name], it says the institution called Parliament. So that institution must carry out the order. The only way the institution can carry out the order is for the institution to reason together. And that is only done in a sitting where the opportunity is given to members to think through it," he told the Parliamentarians.
In the May 17 ruling, Presiding Judge Justice Jones Dotse stated that the Electoral Commission (EC) had acted unconstitutionally by allowing Quayson to contest the 2020 parliamentary elections without providing proof of renouncing his Canadian citizenship.
The case was brought forward by Michael Ankomah Nimfah, a resident of the constituency.
Nimfah argued that Quayson, at the time of filing his nomination form in October 2020, was not eligible to contest as a member of Parliament for the Assin North Constituency.
Following the court's ruling, the Clerk of Parliament wrote to the Electoral Commission (EC) declaring the Assin North seat vacant, leading to the scheduling of a by-election for June 27.
However, Speaker Alban Bagbin now supports the idea of retaining Quayson's name in Parliament's records.
He has taken this path because he does not "want to assume powers that are not clearly spelt out in any law."
"So I did indicate and mentioned to some members of the Supreme Court that there is a need for clarification,” he explained.
Latest Stories
-
Bristol University threatened with legal action after protest at academic’s talk
14 minutes -
US launches review of advanced Nvidia AI chip sales to China, sources say
28 minutes -
2 nurses, security guard arrested over alleged baby theft at Tamale hospital
39 minutes -
Elon Musk becomes first person worth $700 billion following pay package ruling
51 minutes -
Fussy eaters and TV remote hogs: How to avoid family rows over Christmas
1 hour -
Singing at school shouldn’t just be for Christmas, teachers say
1 hour -
Pan-African Progressive Front Advances Reparatory Justice at Accra Diaspora Summit
1 hour -
Japan prepares to restart world’s biggest nuclear plant, 15 years after Fukushima
1 hour -
India express train kills seven elephants crossing tracks
2 hours -
TTU’s number-one ranking due to research commitment – Vice-Chancellor
2 hours -
US pursuing third oil tanker linked to Venezuela, official says
2 hours -
At least 13 photos removed from justice department Epstein files website
2 hours -
Margins sets example in Urban Renewal and Climate Resilience
2 hours -
Rights groups condemn new record number of executions in Saudi Arabia
2 hours -
Another 130 abducted schoolchildren released in Nigeria
2 hours
