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
-
Dropbox says about 5,000 accounts compromised in August hack
5 minutes -
Could Tupac verdict inspire new efforts to find killer of his rival the Notorious B.I.G.?
12 minutes -
District Assembly elections set to become major flashpoint in constitution review
21 minutes -
NPP warns government against taking control of constitutional referendum campaign
39 minutes -
NPP set to challenge government’s position on constitutional reforms
57 minutes -
Algeria president seeks death penalty for arsonists after deadly forest fires
1 hour -
‘I have fired 40 of my agents for being corrupt’, says Nigeria’s anti-corruption chief
1 hour -
Urine test can spot more than nine in 10 bladder cancers
2 hours -
Iran retaliates after US strikes kill four at wedding party, state media reports
2 hours -
Germany says Russia behind Leipzig airport drone attack
2 hours -
Constitution Review: Committee won’t rubber-stamp govt’s proposals, says Barker-Vormawor
2 hours -
We’ll translate political decisions into law, not make them, says Barker-Vormawor
2 hours -
‘I’ll get better’ – how did Alcaraz look on winning singles return?
3 hours -
Wawrinka feels the love on Grand Slam goodbye
3 hours -
Osaka’s latest fashion statement inspired by ‘trailblazer’ Iverson
3 hours