You are here: HomeNews2022 04 13Article 1514462

General News of Wednesday, 13 April 2022


Don't deny Assin North an MP – Tsatsu Tsikata tells Supreme Court ahead of ruling

Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata

Supreme Court rules on James Gyakye Quayson's case today

Lawyers for the Defendant had admonished the Justices not to deny the electorates an MP

They indicated that the EC cleared their client to contest the elections

Lawyer for Assin North MP, James Gyakye Quayson, have urged the Supreme Court not to deny the people of Assin North a member of Parliament even on an interim basis.

According to Tsatsu Tsikata, the forum shopping and manipulation of the judicial process cannot be a justification for the ousting of an individual who legitimately contested and won an election after gaining 54.19% of valid votes cast.

His comments were contained in documents filed on behalf of the MP at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will on Wednesday, April 13 deliver a major ruling to determine the fate of the embattled MP.

Lawyers Tsatsu Tsikata and Justin Teriwajah had contended that prior to the election, the eligibility of Mr. Quayson was challenged.

But the Electoral Commission cleared the MP to contest the polls.

They stated that the matter ended up at the High Court with the court nullifying the polls.

They, however, indicate that the High Court in Cape Coast erred in concluding on the matter because it should have referred relevant portions of the Constitution to the Supreme Court for interpretation.


The lawyers of the MP further argue that in the substantive case accompanying the request to restrain the legislator by the Plaintiff, Michael Ankomah-Nimfah's lawyers nonetheless concede that an issue of interpretation arises.

To them, the Supreme Court would have to speak on the matter after which the case will be sent back to the High Court.

“That the Supreme Court cannot proceed with the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff based on mere and unverified allegations of his owing allegiance to a country other than Ghana.

“That it would be denying the people of Assin North their right of representation in the 8th Parliament of the Fourth Republic if the Supreme Court were to grant the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff even on an interim basis.

"The Plaintiff ought not to be allowed in forum shopping and sheer manipulation of judicial process to turn justice on its head,” the documents stated further.

Supreme Court rules on Gyakye Quayson’s case today

The Supreme Court will rule on the motion seeking to stop James Gyakye Quayson from holding himself out as the MP for Assin North, today, Wednesday, April 13.

At the last hearing on April 5, 2022, the lawyer for petitioner Michael Ankomah-Nimfah, Frank Davis, said his client has established grievous breaches of the 1992 Constitution, and the other electoral laws against the disputed MP.

But Lead Counsel for Gyakye Quayson, Tsatsu Tsikata, who had raised a preliminary objection to the motion, argued that the Supreme Court rules did not provide for such motions and that the applicant should have sought leave from the Supreme Court to allow him to bring the motion.


Michael Ankomah-Nimfah, a resident of Assin Bereku in the Central Region, filed a petition at the Cape Coast High Court seeking to annul the declaration of Gyakye Quayson as the MP Assin North.

According to him, the MP had dual citizenship prior to filing nominations to contest for the Assin North parliamentary seat during the 2020 polls.

The Cape Coast High Court subsequently declared the 2020 parliamentary election held in the Assin North Constituency as null and void, as it upheld that Gyakye Quayson breached the provisions of the constitution with regard to dual citizenship.

But James Gyakye Quayson subsequently appealed the judgment, at the Court of Appeal in Cape Coast, but the case was subsequently dismissed.

He again sought cover from the Supreme Court.

Michael Ankomah-Nimfah also dragged the issue to the Supreme Court in a bid to have Quayson prevented from carrying himself as the MP for Assin North.

He filed a writ to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, seeking interpretation of Article 94(2)(a) of the Constitution.