Gyakye Quayson was unqualified to be MP - • Supreme Court gives full reasons
The Supreme Court has released its full reasons for declaring the election of James Gyakye Quayson as unconstitutional by holding that by law, the former MP was not qualified to contest the Assin North seat in 2020.
Advertisement
It was the considered view of the court that Article 94(2) (a) of the 1992 Constitution, which bars a person who owes allegiance to another country from becoming an MP takes effect at the time the Electoral Commission (EC) opens nomination and not during the election or the swearing-in of MPs in Parliament.
In view of that, the court held that Mr Quayson was constitutionally barred from contesting the Assin North seat because in October 2020 when the EC opened nominations for persons to file to contest , he failed to renounce his Canadian citizenship before filing to contest.
“We state without any equivocation that Article 94(2) (a) means that to be qualified to be a Member of Parliament, a citizen of Ghana must not hold any other citizenship at the time when nominations are opened by the Electoral Commission for registration of candidates for election as Members of Parliament,” the court held.
The unanimous decision of the seven-member panel was authored by Justice Nene Amegatcher, with Justice Jones Dotse presiding and Justices Mariama Owusu, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi and Barbara Ackah-Yensu, as members.
Effective date for renunciation
Another thorny issue was whether Mr Quayson could still be said to owe allegiance to Canada when he had applied for renunciation of his Canadian citizenship in 2019 but the renunciation certificate was issued by the Canadian government in November 2020.
Counsel for Quayson, Tsatsu Tsikata, argued before the court that his client did not owe any allegiance to Canada because by all intents and purposes, he had made it clear that he did not want to be a Canadian citizen again.
The apex court, however, rejected this argument and held that one could only be said to have renounced his citizenship of a country after completing the entire process and in this case be issued with a renunciation certificate.
According to the court, a unilateral declaration of intention by an individual to renounce his citizenship of a country without the recognition or acceptance by the said country that the person had indeed renounced the citizenship would not suffice in law.
“Since the first defendant [Gyakye Quayson] had not received his certificate of renunciation as a Canadian citizen as of October 9, 2020, then he was not qualified to be a Member of Parliament at the time he filed his nomination papers, at the time he stood for elections, and at the time he was declared as elected Member of Parliament, because he owed allegiance to another country as at October 9, 2020, the date when he should have satisfied the qualification criteria,” the court held
Meaning of allegiance
The court further dismissed an argument by the former MP that “allegiance” as stipulated in Article 94(2) (a) of the Constitution had nothing to do with dual citizenship or nationality.
It was the considered view of the court that it had already decided in a previous decision that allegiance and loyalty meant being a citizen of Ghana.
“As far back as 2012, this court was very clear that citizenship was bound up with loyalty to the State and allegiance to it.
There is, therefore, no ambiguity when Article 94(2)(a) refers to ‘owing allegiance to a country other than Ghana.
’ In Asare v Attorney –General, this court assumed to mean being a citizen of a country other than Ghana.
Citizenship and allegiance are bound up in the same spirit,” the court held.
Jurisdiction of the court
Again, the highest court of the land dismissed a preliminary legal objection raised by Mr Quayson that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.
Mr Quayson had argued that the suit was primarily an election petition seeking to remove him from office as an MP and therefore it was the High Court that had the jurisdiction to entertain such actions.
In dismissing that preliminary objection, the court held that the case before it was an interpretation and enforcement of Article 94(2)(a) and not an election petition.
“What this court had been called to do is to interpret and enforce Article 94(2(a) with regard to the qualification of the first defendant to become and remain a Member of Parliament,” the court held.
Writer’s email: emma.hawkson
@graphic.com.gh