Supreme Court fumes over continuous absence of Gyakye Quayson

The Supreme Court has expressed concerns regarding the repeated absence of James Gyakye Quayson, the Member of Parliament for Assin North, despite the filing of applications at the apex court.

During the commencement of proceedings, it was observed that Gyakye Quayson was once again absent. Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo pointed out that this has become a recurring pattern, where the MP files applications but fails to appear on the scheduled date for the hearing.

In response to the Chief Justice’s inquiry, lawyer Justin Tarewagya, representing Gyakye Quayson, could not provide a satisfactory explanation for his client’s absence and offered an apology.

Justice Amadu Tanko, a member of the bench, attributed this situation to the practice of having counsel for Gyakye Quayson depose to the affidavit in support of the application. He used this opportunity to caution all lawyers that such a practice might lead to complications.

Assured presence

The lawyer of Gyakye Quayson assured the court that he will advise his client accordingly to ensure his presence during future proceedings.

The Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of upholding proper legal procedures and the necessity for active participation in the court processes.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has dismissed an application by James Gyakye Quayson seeking to quash a decision of the high court not to allow for further disclosures in the criminal trial his facing.

The lawyers representing Gyakye Quayson had filed a certiorari application, arguing that the trial judge had erred in denying their request to direct the Attorney General’s office to provide additional disclosures.

The contention of Gyakye Quayson’s lawyers was that the judge made a mistake by not allowing their application to be heard. They further argued that the judge based her decision on a document from the Attorney General, which lacked an accompanying affidavit.

This document, in response to Gyakye Quayson’s request for more disclosures, indicated that no further disclosures were available.

Justin Tarewagya, who represented Gyakye Quayson, objected to the court’s reliance on the non-affidavit document. He argued that the court should not have considered it as it lacked the necessary legal weight.

On the other hand, Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame opposed the certiorari application, claiming it was incomplete. He asserted that although the application was by Gyakye Quayson, the supporting deposition lacked proof of authority from the lawyer, which is a violation of court rules, rendering the application incomplete.

Additionally, the Attorney General refuted claims that Gyakye Quayson’s lawyers were not allowed to present their arguments during the high court proceedings.

He cited excerpts from the high court’s records to support his stance.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented, the Supreme Court dismissed Gyakye Quayson’s application, ruling that it lacked merit.

Consequently, the decision of the high court regarding further disclosures in the criminal trial stands.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button