By a vote of 5-2, a seven-member Supreme Court review panel dismissed a review request made by a constrained Assin North Constituency Member of Parliament.
Through his attorneys, Tsatsu Tsikata and James Gyakye Quayson, the supreme court was asked to reconsider its earlier ruling regarding a referral that had been requested at the Cape Coast Court of Appeal but was denied.
His motion for a stay of proceedings was denied by a five-member panel of the Supreme Court on March 9 in a judgment reached by a 3-2 majority.
James Quayson, who has subsequently been prohibited from carrying out his parliamentary duties, requested that the Supreme Court stay proceedings at the Cape Court of Appeal for the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 94(2)(a).
However, the Supreme Court rejected it and ruled that he should have filed that application first with the Cape Coast Court.
By a 3-2 margin, the application was rejected by three justices, Gertrude Torkornoo, Clemence Honyenuga, and Yonni Kulendi, with Justices Gabriel Pwamang and Agnes Dordzie dissenting.
Unhappy with that decision, his attorney filed a request for review, which Michael Ankomah Nimfah, an interested party respondent, opposed.
In court on Wednesday, July 27, when the enhanced panel of seven with Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensah Bonsu and Justice Prof. Nii Ashie Kottey added to the ordinary panel, the court dismissed the review.
With Justice Agnes Dordzie and Justice Gabriel Pwamang dissenting, the remaining five dismissed it in a 5-2 majority.
While introducing the application on July 12, Mr. Tsikata voiced “jurisdictional” reservations.
No extraordinary circumstances have been brought forth to demonstrate that Michael Ankomah Nimfah has created a miscarriage of justice, according to Frank Davies, counsel for the first interested party.
Frank Davies, the applicant’s attorney, told the court, “We suggest that the application is profoundly misconceived and an abuse of the court’s processes.”
Source: Ghanatodayonline.com