Supreme Court dismisses Quayson's motion for Certiorari, Prohibition against High Court

The panel presided over by Dotse(JSC) noted that the ' motion for Certiorari and Prohibition against the July 12, 2022 decision of the High Court(Criminal Division) fails' and thus dismissed accordingly.

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

The Supreme Court has dismissed a motion for Certiorari, Prohibition filed by the embattled Assin North MP, James Gyakye Quayson against a decision of the High Court(Criminal Division).

The panel presided over by Dotse(JSC) noted that the ' motion for Certiorari and Prohibition against the July 12, 2022 decision of the High Court(Criminal Division) fails' and thus dismissed accordingly.

In February this year, Mr. James Gyakye Quayson was charged by the state with five counts of perjury and forgery of a passport with the specific charges being; deceit of a public officer, forgery of a passport, knowingly making a false statutory declaration, perjury, and false declaration.

In July 2022, Mr. Tsikata objected to the 1st Prosecuting Witness, Richard Takyi-Mensah, and his subsequent tendering of his witness statements.

However, the trial Judge overruled the above noting that the witness was competent and duly admitted the witness statements and paragraphs.

Mr. Quayson thus filed a motion at the apex court seeking firstly to quash the above decision of the trial judge and an order of Prohibition against the same.

At the last court sitting, counsel for the MP indicated among others while moving the motion that there was a fundamental error albeit elementary error in the law relative to the High Court Judge’s decision.

He added that it is due to the above that his client is “seeking not only seeking to quash but an order of prohibition on her from proceeding in respect of her statement which clearly in error.

However, the Director of Public Prosecution, Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa noted that the applicant had failed to properly invoke the Supervisory Jurisdiction of the court.

She added that the applicant has failed to show that there was a patent or fundamental error that goes to Jurisdiction and that the learned Judge acted within Jurisdiction in holding that the witness was a ‘competent witness.’

Referring to Sections 60(2), 111, and 112 of the (NRCD 323) she said that the evidence is personal knowledge and need not consist of the testimony of the witness himself.

She, therefore, noted that even if the said adoption of the statements by the trial judge was wrong, it does not constitute a fundamental error and thus described the application as frivolous and ought to be dismissed.

Present in court today for the state was a Deputy AG, Alfred Tuah Yeboah with assistance from Reginald Odoi( Assistant State Attorney).