Your ruling is an insult to our democracy – John Mahama tells Supreme Court Judges on Assin North MP’s case
Your ruling is an insult to our democracy: The former president John Dramani Mahama, who was also the 2020 Presidential candidate of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) has disagreed with the Supreme Court’s latest ruling against the embattled NDC MP for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, restraining him from attending Parliament and carrying himself as a parliamentarian.
Mr. Mahama says that the Supreme Court verdict “is a travesty of justice and an affront to our democracy”.
The nation’s apex court on Wednesday 13th April 2022 ruled that Mr. James Quayson, whose position as a Member of Parliament for Assin North has been in dispute since he assumed his seat in January 2021, cannot continue to represent his constituents in the parliament house.
The seven-member panel presided over by Justice Jones Dotse, reached a 5:2 majority decision to injunct Mr. Quayson from sitting as an MP in Parliament.
Justices Jones Dotse, Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Torkornoo, Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu, and Yonny Kulendi were the five Supreme Court judges who granted the injunction application, while Justices Agnes Dordzie and Nene Amegatcher dissented.
“The MP is restrained from holding himself as the MP for Assin North and restrained from attending Parliament to conduct business on behalf of Assin North,” the presiding judge ruled.
Mahama’s Travesty of justice comment
However, in a Facebook post on Thursday 14 April 2022, Mr. John Mahama posted: “I cannot understand how an MP can be restrained from carrying out his duties when the substantive case to give finality to the question of his legitimacy has not been determined. Or is it the case that the outcome of the substantive case has been predetermined against him?”
He further added that; “The representation of the people is at the heart of our democracy. Any decision that denies the citizenry of representation is a travesty of justice and an affront to our democracy.”
Background of Mr. Quayson’s allegiance case
Mr. Quayson, in spite of a high court judgment that declared his election as an MP in the 2020 parliamentary election unconstitutional, continued to hold himself as an MP and was seen attending sittings of the House and carrying out his parliamentary duties.
Displeased with his actions, the petitioner in the high court action, Michael Ankomah-Nimfah, filed an application at the Supreme Court, seeking an order to injunct Hon. Quayson from his MP roles.
He also sought an interpretation of Article 94 (2a) of the 1992 constitution of the republic, which states that “a person shall not be qualified to be a member of Parliament if he – (a) owes allegiance to a country other than Ghana”.
The court injunction will remain in force until the final determination of the application seeking interpretation of Article 94 (2a).
