Supreme Court adjourns application hearing to restrain James Quakye Quayson as MP indefinitely

Date: 2022-02-02
news-banner


Accra, Feb. 1, GNA - The hearing of an application seeking to restrain James Gyakye Quayson from holding himself as the Member of Parliament for Assin North has been adjourned indefinitely by the Supreme Court.

Michael Ankomah Nimfah, a resident of Assin Breku, the plaintiff, had obtained judgement from a Cape Coast High Court nullifying Quayson’s election because of his alleged Canadian citizenship.

Mr Nimfah has, therefore, gone before the Apex Court of the land restraining Quayson as MP for Assin North, and seeking the interpretation of Article 94 (2) (a) of the Constitution, which prevents a person from holding allegiance to another country.

The hearing of the Supreme Court was, however, adjourned sine die (indefinitely) because processes of the court had not been served on Mr Quayson.

The seven-member panel, presided over by Justice Jones Victor Dotse, ordered the Plaintiff to assist the Court to serve the first defendant (Mr Quayson).

When the court asked the Registrar if all parties had been served, the Registrar indicated that all parties had been served except Mr Quayson.

The Court Registrar said a Court Bailiff, one Haruna Nelson, first attempted serving the court processes on the Clerk of Parliament.

“The Clerk of Parliament informed us that our service was wrong and that the processes should go through the Speaker of Parliament.

On January 31, this year, the Bailiff went to serve the Speaker of Parliament and the Speaker’s Secretary said the Speaker of Parliament was out of the country and, therefore, she could not receive the processes, the Registrar told the court.”

Mr Frank Davies, counsel for the plaintiff told the court that “your direction would help us effect the services of the Court processes.”

Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, the Attorney General, who was in court with his deputies, told the Apex Court that it was wrong to have attempted service through the Parliament because the “status of the person we are dealing with has been determined by a superior court.

“The processes should have been served through personal service instead of through Parliament.”

Source: GNA

Leave Your Comments