The wish for the ousted Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson to be absent from court to embark on his campaign for the upcoming by-election has been granted by the Accra High Court trying him on criminal charges.
This follows the adjournment of the sittings to Friday where a ruling will be given on the motion by Quayson for the court to vary its orders to hear the criminal trial daily.
The trial is being conducted on a day-to-day basis amidst claims by a section of the populace that the move is aimed at frustrating the NDC’s parliamentary candidate in the build-up to the upcoming by-election in the constituency, scheduled for Tuesday, June 27, 2023.
Due to that, the High Court has set June 23 to rule on whether the trial of James Gyakye Quayson should be put on hold.
The trial judge, Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh, who fixed the date, said Quayson could choose not to attend proceedings on the date set for the ruling.
The motion filed by lawyers for Gyakye Quayson wants the court, which had earlier indicated daily trial to vary its orders and have the case rather continued after Tuesday.
In the motion, Quayson’s lawyers argued that hearing the case on the said dates would negatively impact Quayson’s chances in the elections.
The court said the ousted Assin North MP, failed to prove that he had renounced his Canadian citizenship when he filed his nomination to contest the 2020 general elections.
Parliament subsequently declared the Assin North seat vacant, leading to the Electoral Commission (EC) of Ghana announcing a by-election on June 27, 2023, to fill the seat.
The deposed MP, James Gyakye Quayson is standing trial for deceit of a public officer, forgery of a passport, and knowingly making a false statutory declaration and perjury.
On Monday, the lawyers of the deposed MP and the Attorney General argued out their cases as to whether the matter should be tried daily as ordered by the court from June 20 to June 23 or not, where Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame raised a preliminary objection to a supplementary affidavit to the motion.
His objection was because the motion was not properly before the court as lawyers of Gyakye Quayson did not seek leave of the court to file the affidavit and the facts adduced in it were not relevant to the case.
The Attorney General explained that the defense team has referred to some comments attributed to him which related to the civil aspect of the matter against Gyakye Quayson, comparisons with the Adamu Sakande case, and some comments made about the Opuni trial which he insisted were not relevant to the criminal case nor the motion for variation.
However, Tsatsu Tsikata insisted on the relevance of the facts saying that it seeks to prove a pattern of how the Attorney General has been making prejudicial comments about cases before the courts which in his view are against the ethics of the legal profession.
The judge after considering the arguments adopted the supplementary affidavit indicating the facts were relevant to the issues alleged in the motion and on the failure of the defense team to seek leave of the court before filing the supplementary affidavit, the judge held that the court has the discretion on regulating the filing of processes.
Due to that Tsatsu Tsikata moved the application for the variation of the order to sit daily, which he insisted that the decision to contest the by-election in Assin North is a national duty and hence the trial should be conducted in a manner that will not impede this obligation.
Mr. Tsikata further argued that this obligation has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court and in Article 55(13) of the constitution.
He further contended that the said article indicates that persons contesting for national elections have the right to conduct their campaigns per the Constitution.
The defense also raised concerns about some comments made by Attorney General Godfred Dame which in their view goes against the presumption that one is innocent until proven guilty.
In response, the Attorney General explained that there were some misconceptions suggesting that he set the dates for trial, adding that he only prayed for the case to be heard daily which the court obliged and set the disputed dates of June 21 to June 23.
The Attorney General, further noted that the adjournment of a criminal case is the discretion of the judge in which the parties have no say.
Godfred Dame further argued that granting the instant application will be against fair trial rules provided for in Article 19 which provides for trial within a reasonable time.
He indicated that the requirement of daily trials is provided for by the practice directions of the court and any other decision will be against Gyakye Quayson’s right to a fair trial and also argued that it will be discriminatory.
