The Supreme Court has extended the filing deadline for James Gyakye Quayson to submit a review against the court’s ruling that declared his election as Member of Parliament (MP) for Assin North unconstitutional. Justice Ernest Yao Gaewu, presiding over the court, granted the motion for an extension of time, giving Quayson an additional seven days.
During the hearing, Justice Gaewu expressed his intention to grant the motion even before Quayson’s counsel, Tsatsu Tsikata, presented it. As a result, Tsikata simply moved the motion without reiterating the submissions in the supporting affidavit.
The presiding judge then asked the respondent’s counsel, Frank Davies, if he had any new submissions that could convince him not to grant the motion. Davies responded in the negative, acknowledging that Justice Gaewu had already made up his mind.
Consequently, the court granted Quayson a seven-day extension to file the review, despite his initial request for a one-month extension.
According to the Supreme Court Rules, a party has one month from the date of the court’s decision to file a review. However, a party can request an extension of time, which may be granted if the court finds merit in the application.
The Supreme Court had delivered the judgment declaring Quayson’s election as unconstitutional on May 17, with the full reasoning made available on June 5, 2023.
In his application for an extension of time, Quayson stated that he intended to file a review challenging the judgment but required the full reasoning to do so. He requested a one-month extension from the time the full judgment was made available.
The respondent, Michael Ankomah-Nimfah, opposed the extension in his affidavit, arguing that Quayson had sufficient time to file the review before the original deadline of June 17, after the full reasoning was released on June 5.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on May 17 determined that the entire process leading to Quayson’s election violated Article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, which prohibits dual citizens from running for MP. The court found that Quayson had not renounced his Canadian citizenship when he filed his nomination forms in October 2020, rendering him ineligible under Article 94(2)(a).
The court also held that the Electoral Commission violated the Constitution by allowing Quayson to contest the election despite his dual citizenship status.
Quayson’s application for a review seeks to challenge the court’s decision based on the interpretation of Article 94(2)(a) and the alleged violation of his rights.
