Speaker of Parliament, Rt. Hon. Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, has sought clarity from the Supreme Court regarding the ruling on the eligibility of James Gyakye Quayson, the Member of Parliament for Assin North constituency.
This development follows the expression of concerns by some Members of Parliament regarding the implementation of the Supreme Court’s order, as the existing parliamentary standing orders do not offer clear guidance on executing such a directive.
In a move to ensure a clear interpretation of the court’s decision, Bagbin has taken the initiative to seek guidance from the apex court.
The controversy surrounding James Gyakye Quayson’s eligibility arose from a petition filed by Michael Ankomah-Nimfa, a resident of the Assin North constituency.
Ankomah-Nimfa argued that Quayson held dual citizenship at the time of filing his nomination to contest in the 2020 parliamentary elections, which, according to Ghanaian law, disqualifies an individual from being a Member of Parliament.
On 17th May, the Supreme Court by a unanimous decision ordered Parliament to expunge the name of Mr Gyakye Quayson from its records as the Member of Parliament for the Assin North constituency
However, given the public interest and the need for a clear understanding of the Supreme Court’s decision, Speaker Alban Bagbin has taken the proactive step of seeking clarification from the court.
Bagbin’s action is aimed at ensuring that the interpretation of the ruling is consistent and that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of the implications for future similar cases.
The Speaker of Parliament acknowledged the significance of the Supreme Court’s judgment, as it has far-reaching implications for the country’s electoral processes and the qualifications of Members of Parliament.
“What has just happened is strong evidence that there is a need for clarification. Don’t forget that the order is predicated on a number of declaratory rulings by the court, it was not given in isolation. There were four earlier declaratory judgements before the order came as the fifth. The other declaratory judgements said the election of the member was unconstitutional. As a result of that, it was null and void and of no effect.”
