Quayson and Sakande Courts erred in interpreting Article 94(2)-Kwaku Azar writes
It is misinterpretation on steroids to hold that Article 94(2)(a) was meant to disqualify dual citizens from holding public office
The Quayson court, as in the Sakande court, erred in interpreting Article 94(2)(a) and compounded the error by equating allegiance to citizenship.
Natural born Ghanaians owe an indivisible, indelible and permanent allegiance to Ghana and Ghana only. Those interested in this can read Judge Coke in the famous Calvin case, as further restated by Blackstone. Article 94(2)(a) preceded Article 8(2), which allowed dual citizenship.
It is misinterpretation on steroids to hold that Article 94(2)(a) was meant to disqualify dual citizens from holding public office when that same Constitution, prior to Act 527, outlawed dual citizenship. The Judge must stay his ruling and refer the matter to the Supreme Court for interpretation.
It is because of these errors, motivated by the politicization of citizenship, that we have moved for the repeal of Article 94(2)(a) and other Articles, inserted in 1996, that allow dual citizenship but impose public-office holding restrictions unrelated to Article 94(2)(a)
