Assin North MP’s request for a judge’s ban is denied by the Supreme Court

Spread the love

James Gyakye Quayson, the beleaguered Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North, filed an appeal for certiorari and prohibition against a ruling made by the High Court in Accra regarding his criminal trial, but it was denied by the Supreme Court.

The application for certiorari and prohibition against the High Court’s (Criminal Division) judgment of July 12, 2022 was denied by the panel, which was presided over by Justice Jones Victor Dotse, on the grounds that it lacked substance.

James Gyakye Quayson was charged by the State on February 12 of this year with five offenses, including fabrication of a passport, producing a false statutory statement with knowledge, perjury, and false declaration.

On July 20, 2022, while the trial went on, his attorneys, lead by Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata, questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s first witness, a teacher named Richard Takyi-Mensah, and his subsequent submission of his witness testimony.

But the trial judge, Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzu, overruled his objection on the grounds that the witness was competent and properly allowed the witness statements and paragraphs.

Mr. Quayson and his attorneys filed an application at the Supreme Court to overturn the trial court’s judgment and an order of prohibition against the judge after being dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision.


When introducing the application, Attorney Tsikata said that the High Court Judge’s ruling had a fundamental, if simple, legal mistake.

This, he said, resulted in his client’s application “not only seeking to quash but an order of prohibition on her from proceeding in respect of her statement which was clearly in error.

Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa, the director of public prosecution, opposed the application on the grounds that the petitioner had not properly invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the supreme court.

She contends that the applicant has failed to establish that the learned Judge acted lawfully in determining that the witness was a “competent witness” and that there was no obvious or fundamental mistake that affects jurisdiction.

Invoking Sections 60(2), 111, and 112 of the (NRCD 323), the DPP claimed that the evidence was based on the witness’s own knowledge and was not required to provide his or her own testimony.

She argued that even if the trial judge’s acceptance of the statements in question was incorrect, it did not amount to a fundamental mistake, and that the application was thus frivolous and should be rejected.


About admin

Check Also

CPP to elect 2024 flagbearer June 12

Spread the love As nominations are opened, the Convention’s Peoples Party (CPP) has urged competent …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *