Suit against Assin North MP prejudicial, contemptuous-Haruna Iddrisu

The Minority Leader in Parliament has described the suit against the Member of Parliament of Assin North by the state as prejudicial and contemptuous to the Court of Appeal.

According to him, the issue of whether or not the MP was qualified per article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 constitution to stand as MP is a question of law pending before the court of appeal.

“Secondly, the issue of whether or not, per article 94(2)(a) of the 1992 Constitution, Hon. James Quayson was qualified to stand as an MP, is a question of law pending before the Court of Appeal, Cape Coast, as well as the Supreme Court in various suits. Also, an application for Stay of Execution of the Cape Coast High Court’s annulment of the 2020 Assin North Parliamentary Election filed by Hon. Quayson is still pending before the Court of Appeal. “

“Under the circumstances, the lawful and reasonable thing for the Ghana Police Service, the ruling NPP government, and their surrogates to do is to abide by the decision of the Court of Appeal on these processes. Any attempt by the Police to prosecute Hon. James Quayson on the conclusion or assumption that he was or is not qualified to contest the 2020 parliamentary election is prejudicial of the Court of Appeal and therefore contemptuous of same.”

In a press statement signed by the leader of the Minority Caucus, he further accused the Attorney general and the Police Service of acting in bad faith to get an unfair advantage in Parliament for the NPP Government to pass the E-levy.

Additionally,  the caucus added that the said declaration made by Hon Quayson at the EC was challenged and same investigated by the Commission after which they declared in favor of the MP.

“It must be placed on record that the legal propriety of the said declaration made by Hon. James Quayson was challenged at the time he submitted the same to the Electoral Commission, whereupon the EC invited Hon. James Quayson and his detractors for an investigation of the said complaint. “

“The Electoral Commission subsequently determined the matter in favor of Hon. James Quayson after he had adduced sufficient evidence to satisfy the Electoral Commission that he was very much qualified to stand for election, whereupon he was cleared to contest the election. In the light of these facts, how can it properly contend that Hon. James Quayson criminally used a false declaration to deceive the Electoral Commission to stand for the said election? “