‘Burger’ MP Fights Injunction

    The restrained Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, has filed a motion for review at the Supreme Court urging the court to reverse its decision to place an interlocutory injunction on him.

    The MP, in a motion filed by his lawyers, argues that the decision of the Ordinary Bench contained patent errors which led to its decision to restrain him from performing his parliamentary duties.

    One of these errors, they contend, is the wrong assumption of jurisdiction over a suit involving declaring the results of a parliamentary election invalid when the court itself has previously decided on many occasions that it does not have jurisdiction over such a suit.

    The Supreme Court in a 5:2 majority made up of Justices Jones Dotse, Mariama Owusu, Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu, Gertrude Torkornoo and Yonny Kulendi granted the application for interlocutory injunction against Mr. Quayson while Justices Agnes Dordzie and Nene Amegatcher dissented.

    The restriction was imposed after the court granted an application for interlocutory injunction filed by Michael Ankomah-Nimfa, who is challenging the election of Mr. Quayson on grounds of illegibility.

    A Cape Coast High Court last year ordered the MP to vacate his seat after it found that at the time of filing his nomination to contest in the parliamentary election, which he won in December 7, 2020, Mr. Quayon held dual citizenship, which is against the laws of Ghana.

    The Apex Court in its decision restrained Mr. Quayson from further carrying out himself as the MP for Assin North until the further determination of the substantive matter before the court regarding the interpretation of Article 94(2A) of the Constitution which borders on dual citizenship.

    The court also restrained the MP from further attending Parliament with the aim of attending to business of the House in the name of the people of Assin North.

    But the MP has filed a motion for review seeking the court to reverse its decision on ground that the court did not have jurisdiction to determine the results of a parliamentary election.

    The motion avers that the majority decision of the Ordinary Bench was in patent and fundamental error, as it failed to appreciate that suit before it seeking the interpretation of Article 94(2a) was in reality an attempt to enforce the decision of the High Court disguised as an invocation of the original jurisdiction of the Apex Court.

    It further avers that the decision of the Ordinary Bench 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 was for the execution of the decision of the courts below, and this error occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice against the MP.

    Again, the motion for review avers that the decision of the Ordinary Bench was in patent and fundamental error when the applicant failed to demonstrate a legal or equitable right that ought to be protected by the court, thereby occasioning a gross miscarriage of justice.

    “The majority decision violated Articles 296 (a) and (b) of the Constitution in exercising discretion unfairly and unreasonably,” the motion added.

    The case is scheduled for May 17, 2022.




    %d bloggers like this: