The embattled former Member of Parliament for Assin North Constituency, Mr. James Gyaakye Quayson has taken a step to the court, to appeal the High Court’s ruling; which annulled his election as Member of Parliament (MP).
On Wednesday July 28, 2021, the Cape Coast Court High court ruled to annul the 2020 parliamentary election results, of the Assin North Constituency in the Central Region of Ghana; restraining the MP- Mr. James Gyakye Quayson from holding himself as the Member of Parliament, and ordering for a by-election in the constituency.
In the latest development, Mr. Quayson; in an appeal filed today Monday, 2 August 2021, is asking the court to declare void the 28 July’s ruling, by the Cape Coast High Court presided over by Justice Kwasi Boakye. According to Mr. Quayson in his appeal, the Cape Coast High Court erred in its ruling and that the ruling was not based in law or in fact.
Assin North constituency seat, in the December 2020 elections, was won by the National Democratic Congress Candidate, Mr. James Gyakye Quayson; with 17, 498, representing 55.21%; against the New Patriotic Party candidate Abena Durowaa Mensah, 14,193-44.79%.
Contending, that the Mr. Quayson was not eligible to be a Member of Parliament, because of his dual citizenship (Ghana and Canada), Mr. Michael Ankomah-Nimfah, a resident of Assin North, on 30 December 2020, filed a parliamentary election petition at the Cape Coast High Court to challenge his eligibility.
The Cape Coast High Court’s ruling has generated many arguments among the Ghanaian public, with some notable people also adding their voices.
Also commented on the rulings; was a United States based Ghanaian, Professor Kwaku Asare…also known as Kwaku Azar. According to Professor Kwaku Asare, the Cape Coast Court High court erred in interpreting Article 94(2)(a), and compounded the error by equating allegiance to citizenship.
In a Facebook post, Kwaku Azar explained that; “Article 94(2)(a) preceded Article 8(2), which allowed dual citizenship. It is misinterpretation on steroids to hold that Article 94(2)(a) was meant to disqualify dual citizens from holding public office when that same Constitution, prior to Act 527, outlawed dual citizenship. The Judge must stay his ruling and refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
Please share your views in the comment box below.
Remember to follow this page for more updates.
Content created and supplied by: NewsBroadcastAndMore (via Opera News )
Opera News is a free to use platform and the views and opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not represent, reflect or express the views of Opera News. Any/all written content and images displayed are provided by the blogger/author, appear herein as submitted by the blogger/author and are unedited by Opera News. Opera News does not consent to nor does it condone the posting of any content that violates the rights (including the copyrights) of any third party, nor content that may malign, inter alia, any religion, ethnic group, organization, gender, company, or individual. Opera News furthermore does not condone the use of our platform for the purposes encouraging/endorsing hate speech, violation of human rights and/or utterances of a defamatory nature. If the content contained herein violates any of your rights, including those of copyright, and/or violates any the above mentioned factors, you are requested to immediately notify us using via the following email address operanews-external(at)opera.com and/or report the article using the available reporting functionality built into our Platform See More