A nine-member panel unanimously decided to reject James Gyakye Quayson’s request for review of the apex court’s order to remove his name from Parliamentary records.
The court had declared all of the procedures leading to his election and oath of office invalid, which resulted in the directive to have his name removed from the legislative records.
The review application was submitted by Mr. Gyakye Quayson’s attorneys on June 29 and a substituted statement of the case was provided on July 5.
They claimed that the court’s judgement had fundamental and elementary flaws and contradicted its earlier binding decisions.
Tsatsu Tsikata, the applicant’s lead attorney, presented the review application and argued that the order to have the applicant’s name expunged lacked natural justice since the applicant was not given a fair chance to be heard.
Mr. Tsikata contended that the appropriate course of action should have been for the court to proclaim the seat empty in place of his client.
In addition, Mr. Tsikata asserted that the court misconstrued earlier judgments that were used to find that Gyakye Quayson’s citizenship at the time of nomination violated article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 constitution.
Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame, who opposed the application, said that there were no flaws in the court’s ruling.
He rejected Mr. Tsikata’s assertion that the court had distorted earlier judgments, considering it to be an inappropriate hint of animosity toward the bench.
Mr. Dame vehemently argued that the court’s ruling had no legal mistakes.
Michael Ankomah Nimfah’s attorney, Frank Davies, also contested the motion, claiming that Mr. Tsikata had distorted the instances on which the judges had relied.
Mr. Davies disagreed with Tsikata’s assertion that the Supreme Court had misrepresented itself.
The motion was ultimately denied because it had any real merit, according to the nine-member panel, which was presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.