Supreme Court determines that James Quayson's election as representative for Assin North was unconstitutional.
Kwaku Paintsil, Managing Partner of Paintsil and Co, believes James Gyakye Quasyon should not have run for office until he was in possession of his certificate of renunciation.
His argument is predicated on the Supreme Court's ruling that Gyakye Quayson violated the constitution by failing to renounce his citizenship at the time of his nomination.
Since then, his election and inauguration into parliament have been declared null and void, and fresh elections have been called in the Assin North constituency he represented.
Mr. Paintsil stated on PM Express that the National Democratic Congress' argument that eligibility requirements could only be activated at the time of oath-taking was defective and did not reflect the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.
"In the case of Gyakye Quayson, the issue at stake is not what my erudite friend is arguing, which is that at the time of swearing in." The law states that you cannot offer yourself for election unless you are on the verge of doing so, and the Supreme Court has adopted this interpretation. You may concur or disagree, but you unfortunately hold opposing beliefs.
"Even though he disagrees, there was an argument that was also presented to the Supreme Court in relation to all the other subsidiary legislations that we have, and the Supreme Court has ruled that upon a reasonable interpretation of Article 94(2)(a), issues of allegiance arise," he said.
Even if the Electoral Commission regarded Gyakye Quayson's nomination acceptable, he argued, they do not have the final say on the interpretation of the constitution.
"And if you're picking up the forms, please remember that the Electoral Commission has the right to make rules, but they're subject to the Supreme Court. Even in the Gyakye Quayson case, the position of the Electoral Commission and the evidence or fact before the court was that Gyakye Quayson had made a reasonable representation to them.
"However, what the Electoral Commission deems reasonable and acceptable cannot be the law in Ghana so long as the Supreme Court believes it contradicts the law's clear provision."