Atuguba chides Supreme Court over Gyakye Quayson trial

A former Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice William Atuguba has punched holes into the Supreme Court decision to accept and try Assin North MP Gyakye Quayson. The MP was battling the validity of his election for two years and spent a long time at the Supreme Court before a verdict was delivered in May 2022.

Gyakye Quayson has since won a by-election held in the constituency to get his replacement. He is now continuing his service to the people of Assin North as their lawmaker though the Supreme Court asked that his name be expunged from Parliament’s records prior to the by-election.

Commenting on the landmark trial, the retired justice who was in charge of the 2012 Election Petition brought to the Supreme Court by the NPP, said the court’s decision was “scandalous”.

Speaking at a public lecture on Tuesday, October 24, the revered justice said he had never seen such a decision in his long years of practice.

“The James Gyakye Quayson’s decision by the Supreme Court is with all due respect scandalous in that the court, in the teeth of the settled maxim Res Judicata et non quieta movere, re adjudicated the same matter that has been adjudicated upon by the High court on the merits. All that was left was its execution according to court processes. Again the stress laid by the court on the statutory processes for acquisition and renunciation of citizenship shot itself in the foot.”

Justice Atuguba added that “statutes, judgements and documents” must always be utilized consistently in “letter and spirit” and must be understood totally as instruments of justice.

“If the certificate of renunciation is so mandatory and conclusive why was it not conclusive in its effect to qualify Gyakye Quason when he received it, dated 26th November 2020, whereas the parliamentary election was held on 7th December 2020?  Statutes, judgements, and documents must always be applied with consistency both in the letter and spirit. These must always be construed holistically and as instruments of justice since it is a well-settled principle that the duty of a court is to do justice and a court should not be turned away from doing justice.”