Supreme Court’s decision to prevent Quayeson from holding himself as MP troubling-Lawyer
The Supreme Court’s majority 5-2 decision that Assin North MP, James Gyakye Quayson, can no longer perform parliamentary duties until the determination of the substantive case has been described as problematic and troubling.
Lawyer Tachie Antiedu who made the observation felt the court is depriving his constituents, of an opportunity to have representation in Parliament.
On Wednesday, April 13, the Court said Mr. Quayson should no longer hold himself as MP or present himself in Parliament.
Justices Dordzie and Nene Amegatcher held the minority view.
“The application succeeds. The MP is restrained from holding himself as MP for Assin North and restrained from attending Parliament to conduct business on behalf of the people of Assin North.
“The restriction remains until the final determination of the substantive matter. We direct that the case hearing be expedited,“ Justice Dotse ruled.
The case was heard by Justices Jones Dotse, Agnes Dordzie, Nene Amegatcher, Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Torkonoo, Prof Henrietta Mensah Bonsu and Emmanuel Y. Kulendi.
Lawyer Antiedu stated that the directive from the court was an injunction preventing the MP from holding himself as MP until the substantive case has been determined.
He explained that the directive by the apex court has created a temporal vacuum.
He said it was good parliament was on recess before the directive came since that would have deprived the embattled MP of his right to vote on decisions in the House.
”We can interpret the directive to mean that he is an MP who has been suspended because this is an injunction. The substantive case has not been determined,” he said.
”I am troubled because the residents would be without an MP. The court has the discretion to either grant an injunction when there is a case pending before it. There are three things that the court considers to grant an injunction. The first thing is to consider if the suit is not a frivolous one, the second one is to determine who would suffer more should the request by the applicant seeking the injunction is granted or the balance of convenience. That was the analysis the majority considered in arriving at their decision. It was their decision that the High Court had already ruled that he could not hold himself as MP. But the directive has created a vacuum”, he posited.