Accra-Ghana, June 22, GNA – An Accra High Court hearing the trial of James Gyakye Quayson, the deposed Member of Parliament for Assin North, has fixed Friday, June 23, to rule on a motion seeking to vary its decision to hear the case on day-to-day basis.
The Court has also permitted Mr Gyakye Quayson to absent himself from Court sitting on Friday, June 23, 2023, since his presence might not be needed.
The Court on Friday June 18, 2023, ruled that the ongoing criminal trial of the former MP will be heard daily starting from Tuesday, June 20, 2023.
This came after the Court, presided over by Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh, had turned down a prayer by Quayson’s lawyer, which sought to have the trial continued after the Assin North by-election scheduled for June 27, 2023.
Lawyers for Gyakye Quayson filed a motion seeking the court to vary its decision to hear the case on day-to-day basis.
Mr Tsatsu Tsikata, Counsel for Gyakye Quayson, said the issues raised in the motion for variation preceded the proceedings.
However, continuing with the trial would be an injustice to the accused person.
He prayed that the Court vary its orders such that they did not have to not have to be in Court on June 23 and June 27, 2023. They have made an application in respect of the dates.
He said they were asking for a variation because it was their view that the Parliamentary by-election election in which the accused person was a candidate is a national assignment.
Mr Tsikata said the right to offer oneself for any political office was recognised within the sculpture of Ghana’s Constitution.
Article 55(13) of the Constitution made it clear that every candidate for Parliament had the right to campaign freely and in accordance with law, therefore, the accused was a candidate and was entitled to that law.
He said in the light of this election, the accused must be allowed the opt to campaign freely in a manner that would not prejudice this trial.
Mr Tsikata said his client was not engaged in any private business, rather he was engaged in an election duly called by the EC.
The court should use its discretion to enable him to participate in a way that did not prejudice the trial, he argued.
“We are concerned when an AG makes comments, which states that the presumption of innocence is not a right,” he added.
He said the Constitution indicated that the accused person was innocent until proven guilty, and comments must not be made in effect, which suggested that he was already condemned.
Mr Tsikata said they received opposition to the motion for which they had filed supplementary affidavit.
He said, “their application makes clear that the AG had been uttering extremely prejudicial utterances before this Court and outside the Court and to the media and they are matters of record they brought to the court”.
But Mr Godfred Dame Yeboah, the Attorney-General, opposed his position, saying, “We have a small objection and the object to the entire supplementary affidavit.”
He said they filed their opposition to the motion, where the accused person raised very serious issues of fact.
He said their first objection was that the filing of supplementary affidavit raising new facts without leave of the court, was improper.
He said the second objection was that a careful perusal revealed that it contained absolutely “unconnected and irrelevant” material to the issues in the Court.
The AG said the opposition raised five matters bordering on an already decided Supreme Court matter and comments that they claimed, he made.
“That matter is clearly not before the Court,” he said.
He said para 4,6,7,8 & 9 of the supplementary affidavit alleged that he indicated that the applicant would suffer the same fate as Adamu Dramani.
Mr Dame said all these matters had nothing to do with the instant proceedings.
Mr Dame said: “l never insisted that the proceedings must be on specific dates, I prayed for day-to-day, I did not suggest the dates.”
He said they were opposed to the conduct of the hearing and the subsequent adjournments, and these were entirely at the discretion of the Court.
He said one of the fundamental elements of fair trial was speedy adjudication.
The AG said the accused had been fortunate to have the matter heard day to day and his lawyers were opposed to that, while others wished their trial would be speedily determined.
He said the day-to-day court hearings was Constitutionally prescribed and the Court was enjoined to conduct cases on day-to-day basis, and so the accused was fortunate to have it heard that way.
The AG said if the Court should grant the application, it would encourage discrimination.
Besides, the accused had no national assignment.
He said the decision to contest was an elective one, it was optional to all persons above the age of 18 years.
The Supreme Court nullified Quayson’s election as the Member of Parliament for Assin North over holding a Canadian citizenship alongside being a Ghanaian at the time he filed his nomination to contest the election in 2020.
He now faces charges of perjury and deceiving a public officer.
