Quayson putting himself up for the election was unfortunate in the first place – Lawyer Paintsil
Kwaku Paintsil, the Managing Partner of Paintsil and Co, asserts that James Gyakye Quasyon should not have put himself forward for election until he had obtained his certificate of renunciation. Paintsil’s argument stems from the Supreme Court’s ruling, which determined that Gyakye Quayson had failed to renounce his citizenship when he was nominated, thus violating the Constitution.
As a result, Gyakye Quayson’s election and induction into parliament were deemed invalid, and new elections have been scheduled for the Assin North constituency, which he represented.
During an appearance on PM Express, Mr. Paintsil argued that the National Democratic Congress’ claim that the eligibility requirements could only be enforced at the time of swearing-in was flawed and did not accurately reflect the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitution.
“In the case of Gyakye Quayson the issue at stake is not indeed what my learned friend is putting across which is that at the point of swearing in. the law is that you must not even offer yourself for election at all unless at the point of offering yourself, and please that is the interpretation the Supreme Court has put on it. You may agree, you may disagree, unfortunately belong to different persuasions.
“And much as he disagrees, there was a contention that was also placed before the Supreme Court vis-à-vis all the other subsidiary legislations that we have, and the Supreme Court has ruled that upon a reasonable interpretation that ought to be placed on Article 94(2)(a) issues of allegiance arise,” he said.
He further argued that the Electoral Commission though they may have deemed Gyakye Quayson’s nomination acceptable, does not have the final say on the interpretation of the constitution.
“And if at the point that you’re picking the forms – and please when he was talking about the Electoral Commission, please don’t forget that the Electoral Commission has got a right to make rules but they’re under the Supreme Court because even in the Gyakye Quayson case, the position of the Electoral Commission and then the evidence or the fact before the court was simply that Gyakye Quayson had made a representation to them which they thought was reasonable.
“But what the Electoral Commission considers reasonable, acceptable cannot be the law in Ghana as long as the Supreme Court takes the view that it contradicts the clear provision of the law.”
