The statements, allegedly made by the Attorney General and contained in several media publications were presented to the court by Tsatsu Tsikata, lead counsel for James Gyakye Quayson. Tsikata described the statements as not only insulting to his client but also prejudicial to the trial of the now-deposed Member of Parliament.
Media Statements
Tsatsu Tsikata argued passionately in court that Godfred Dame in several interviews to the media had averred quite conclusively that the fate of Gyakye Quayson was going to be like Adamu Sikande, a former Member of Parliament who ended up in prison for lying under oath about his citizenship while he was filing his papers to contest for the Bawku parliamentary seat during the 2008 general elections.
The Attorney General maintained that he had not said anything that was prejudicial to the criminal trial of Gyakye Quayson and that all the purported comments were based on the ruling of the Supreme Court which directed that the accused’s name be expunged from the 2020 parliamentary register.
Mr. Tsikata prayed the court to admit the statements into evidence while moving a motion to suspend the day-to-day trial of the former Assin North MP to afford him time to campaign for an impending by-election on the 27th of June.
Mr. Tsikata’s prayer was granted by the court and the statements were admitted duly by the judge.
High Court’s ruling
In delivering her ruling on Friday, June 23, trial judge Mary Yanzuh described the statements as irrelevant and having no bearing on the matter before the court for consideration.
She came to this conclusion after examining the evidence She was presented with. Even though the judge had granted leave for Gyakye Quayson not to attend court for the ruling, she upheld the arguments of the Attorney General founded on several legal authorities that to proceed with any other arrangement than a day-to-day trial will be injurious to the law. She ruled that a speedy trial scheduled on a day-to-day basis is an integral part of the delivery of justice, an argument which was cogently advanced by the Attorney General.
Further to the above, Mary Yanzuh dismissed the assertions of Tsatsu Tsikata that Gyakye Quayson was involved in a national assignment by virtue of the fact that he was standing for elections.
Yanzuh also upheld the A-G’s argument that it was within the exclusive powers of the court to schedule a trial period and that no interested party to the suit should be allowed to input into how the trial is run. On that count, the main argument of Tsatsu Tsikata fell apart.
Godfred Dame’s reaction
“I have always maintained that the purported statements made by me to the media have nothing to do with the criminal trial of James Gyakye Quayson. Tsikata wanted to just abuse my person in court and indeed used some unprintable language against me. I am happy that this vindication has occurred. We were firm in our conviction that this motion which I described as unmeritorious and unknown to the law will fail and it has indeed failed. I have never said anything related to the criminal trial of Gyakye Quayson. Indeed, it is the Supreme Court ruling that described Gyakye Quayson’s matter as being on all fours with Adamu Sikande, something that Mr. Tsikata attributes to me and takes umbrage with.”
Reaction of Gyakye Quayson’s lawyers
Baba Jamal, a member of the legal team of Gyakye Quayson said they were satisfied with the ruling of the court. This was despite the fact that their motion for the suspension of the day-to-day trial had been shot down. Baba Jamal said the whole point of the motion was to be able to grant their candidate some respite to be able to campaign before the by-election in Assin North which had been occasioned by their client’s expunction from Parliament following an order by the Supreme Court.
Deputy Attorney General, Diana Asonaba Dapaah who was in court for the State also expressed satisfaction with the ruling because “it completely upheld the position and arguments of my boss, Godfred Yeboah Dame. We are of the view that the law enjoins the courts to have a speedy trial which is not unnecessarily interrupted. The goal is to achieve a day-to-day trial which is prescribed by the law.
Background
James Gyakye Quayson was elected by the people of Assin North during the 2020 elections as their Member of Parliament. However, his eligibility for the election was questioned because at the time of filing his nomination, he still held Canadian citizenship.
Ghanaian law stipulates that for one to be eligible to become a Member of Parliament, the candidate must not hold allegiance to any country at the time of filing their nomination forms. After losing several judgments on his eligibility in both the High Court and Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court sealed his fate when it declared that Mr Quayson’s election had breached Article 94(2) (a) of the 1992 Constitution because at the time he filed to contest the elections, he was not qualified to be elected as a legislator. He had not denounced his Canadian citizenship.
The court, therefore, declared his whole election and the processes around his filing of nominations as null and void.
Ramifications for Gyakye Quayson
James Gyakye Quayson returns to face criminal charges two days after the Assin North by-election. His trial will resume day-to-day after July 4, 2023. Even if he wins the Assin North by-election he could potentially be kicked out of parliament if he is convicted on the charges he faces in court.
Source: www.ghanaweb.com
