The presiding judge at the Cape Coast High Court, Justice Kwasi Boakye in his ruling on the Assin North case made reference to the 2020 election petition filed at the Supreme Court of Ghana by the presidential candidate of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) in last year’s elections, John Dramani Mahama.
In his ruling which cancelled the Parliamentary elections in Assin North, the judge, Kwasi Boakye said “the court will not permit a plaintiff to be driven from the Judgment seat without considering his right to be heard, except in cases where the cause of action is obviously and almost incontestably bad”
It was at this point that the judge made reference to Mr Mahama’s petition saying “See the case of John Dramani Mahama vs Electoral Commission and Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo Writ No J1 ?05|2021 dated 4th March 2021.”
The Cape Coast Court High court on Wednesday July 28 annulled the 2020 parliamentary election result.
A cost of 10, 000 has been awarded against the Electoral commission and 30 thousand against Joe Gyekye Quayson who until the cancellation of the result was the Assin North MP.
Justice Kwasi Boakye said Mr. Quayson was “restrained from holding himself out as Member of Parliament-elect for the Assin North constituency within the Central Region of the Republic of Ghana and further presenting himself to be sworn in as Member of Parliament-elect as such until the final determination of the petition.”
One Michael Ankoma-Nimfah, a mason and resident of Assin Bereku filed a petition against over dual citizenship.null
The Minority Leader Haruna Iddrisu accused the governing New Patriotic Party (NPP) of using the courts to attempt to win majority seats in Parliament.
He said there is an attempt to change the 137-137 seats for both the National Democratic Congress (NDC) and the NPP by the governing party through the use of the courts.
Mr Iddrisu indicated that the NDC MPs will resist any such attempt by n filing an appeal against the Cape Coast ruling that cancelled the 2020 parliamentary election results.
Speaking at a press conference in Parliament on Wednesday July 28, he indicated that the courts are now being used to tilt the balance of power in Parliament following the equal numbers being controlled by both the New Patriotic Party and the National Democratic Congress (NDC).
“We in the Minority remain unshaken, we are confident that is our seat and will remain our seat, and we will contest the ruling. The judge erred both in law and in fact. It is a travesty of justice but what is worrying, we don’t want to believe that the courts of Ghana have been captured and that the courts of Ghana have become forums being used surreptitiously to tilt the balance of power.
“We are equal, 137-137. What is happening is the courts now being used to tilt the balance of power and to weaken time tested historical notion of checks and balances. Justice must not only be done, but must be manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”null
A United States –based Ghanaian Professor Kwasku Asare also expressed same concerns saying, the “ Quayson court, as in the Sakande court, erred in interpreting Article 94(2)(a) and compounded the error by equating allegiance to citizenship.
“Natural born Ghanaians owe an indivisible, indelible and permanent allegiance to Ghana and Ghana only. Those interested in this can read Judge Coke in the famous Calvin case, as further restated by Blackstone. Or if you want something with ECOWAS flavor, see Dr. Willie Ogebide v. Mr. Arigbe Osula (2004) 12 NWLR Part 886.
“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.
“It is because of these errors, motivated by the politicization of citizenship, that we have moved for the repeal of Article 94(2)(a) and other Articles, inserted in 1996, that allow dual citizenship but impose public-office holding restrictions unrelated to Article 94(2)(a).”