https://www.myjoyonline.com/supreme-court-adjourns-gyakye-quaysons-review-application-for-a-second-time/-------https://www.myjoyonline.com/supreme-court-adjourns-gyakye-quaysons-review-application-for-a-second-time/
James Gyakye Quayson

The Supreme Court has adjourned James Gyakye Quayson’s review application for the second time, seeking the Court to reconsider its order preventing him from discharging his duties as a parliamentarian.

The hearing was initially scheduled for Tuesday, May 10, but it was adjourned to today.

However, the hearing has been adjourned again, this time to Tuesday, May 31.

https://www.myjoyonline.com/supreme-court-adjourns-gyakye-quaysons-review-application-to-may-17/

This was communicated by the Court Registrar, but the reason for the adjournment is not yet known.

The apex court, on Wednesday, April 13, in a 5-2 majority ruling, stopped Mr. Quayson from holding himself out as Assin North MP.

According to the apex court, the order is to protect the sanctity of the constitution.

This is until the substantive case was determined against him at the Supreme Court.

“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,“ the Court ruled.

The ruling,  the embattled MP, has filed for a review of the ruling.

https://www.myjoyonline.com/you-violated-the-constitution-by-stopping-me-from-performing-parliamentary-duties-assin-north-mp-to-supreme-court/

In his review application, he stated that the ruling was a patent and fundamental error of the law and a breach of portions of Ghana’s constitution.

“The majority decision was in patent and fundamental error in granting an order of interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the suit when what the Applicant was seeking by this application was for the execution of decisions in the courts below and this error occasioned a gross miscarriage of justice against the 1st defendant/respondent,” he said in his review application.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.


DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.