Lawyers of restrained Member of Parliament for Assin North James Gyakye Quayson led by Tsatsu Tsikata have filed a review application at the Supreme Court urging the apex court to review its earlier decision on High Court Judge’s prohibition.
On November 30, the Supreme Court panel of five dismissed an application for Certiorari and Prohibition filed by James Gyakye Quayson against the High Court judge in Accra on his criminal trial.
The panel chaired by Justice Jones Victor Dotse ruled that the ‘motion for Certiorari and Prohibition against the July 12, 2022 decision of the High Court (Criminal Division) has no merit and accordingly dismissed it.
Fast forward, the lawyers have filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to review its own decision.
In court on Wednesday, January 18, when the case was called, the enhanced seven-member panel chaired by Justice Jones Dotse had to adjourn to March 1 for a hearing.
This was after counsel for the applicant, Tsikata had prayed for time to be able to file additional grounds to their case because of the delay in receiving the full ruling of the court.
According to him, the court had indicated after the ruling on November 30, last year, that the full decision was going to be ready on December 6.
However, they only received the full ruling on January 16, hence the need to file additional processes.
The Director of Public Prosecution Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa who led the team from the Attorney General’s department also said they received the ruling on January 17 and would want to file their statement of the case.
The enhanced panel of seven chaired by Justice Jones Dotse consequently directed the applicant to file his additional grounds and any other processes by February 15.
The Attorney General’s department led by the Director of Public Prosecution Yvonne Atakora Obuobisa was also asked to file their response if any by February 22, while the parties return to court on March 1, 2023, for a hearing.
The State had on February 12, last year, charged James Gyakye Quayson with five counts being; deceit of a public officer, forgery of a passport, knowingly making a false statutory declaration, perjury, and false declaration.
As the trial continued on July 2022, his lawyers led by Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata questioned the competency of the Prosecution’s First Witness, Richard Takyi-Mensah, a teacher and his subsequent tendering of his witness statements.
But, his objection was overruled by the trial Judge Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzu on grounds that the witness was competent and duly admitted the witness statements and paragraphs.
Dissatisfied with the High Court’s ruling, Mr. Quayson and his lawyers filed a motion at the Supreme Court seeking to quash the decision of the trial judge and order of Prohibition against the judge.
Lawyer Tsikata while moving the application, argued that there was a fundamental error albeit elementary error in the law relative to the High Court Judge’s decision.
This, he said, resulted in his client’s application “not only seeking to quash but an order of prohibition on her from proceeding in respect of her statement which was clearly in error.
The Director of Public Prosecution, Yvonne Attakora Obuobisa while opposing the motion argued that the applicant had failed to properly invoke the Supervisory Jurisdiction of the apex court.
According to her, 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.’
Relying on Sections 60(2), 111, and 112 of the (NRCD 323), the DPP said the evidence is personal knowledge and need not consist of the testimony of the witness himself.
She contended 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.