Director of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Legal Directorate, Abraham Amaliba, has revealed that the party has decided to lead the Assin North MP to seek a review of the Supreme Court’s ruling on April 13.
He said this is the decision of the national executive.
“At the end of the day, it was the decision to go for a review of the Supreme Court ruling and that is what has been agreed upon now.”
On Wednesday, in a majority 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that James Gyakye Quayson can no longer perform parliamentary duties.
This is until the determination of the substantive case filed against him at the apex court.
Speaking to JoyNews on Thursday, Mr Amaliba stated that the NDC will exhaust all legal options, therefore, the decision to seek a review.
According to him, should the apex court still hold its position, the party will adequately prepare itself for a by-election.
“It is important to exhaust all the legal options in this matter and then when we are done with the legal options, if the final verdict then comes and it is that he can no longer hold himself or not be allowed to represent the people of Assin North, then we go for the by-election.”
Meanwhile, former President John Mahama has described Supreme Court’s ruling that barred the Assin North MP, Gyakye Qayson, from performing parliamentary duties as a misrepresentation of justice.
The 2020 NDC flagbearer, in a Facebook post on Thursday, said the apex court’s ruling is a deliberate display of disrespect to the country’s democracy.
“The representation of the people is at the heart of our democracy. Therefore, any decision that denies the citizenry of representation is a travesty of justice and an affront to our democracy,” Mr Mahama said.
Mr Mahama also questioned the legality of the ruling when there is a substantive case pending before the Supreme Court on the legitimacy of the Assin North MP.
He, thus, suspects that the substantive case before the apex court has already been ruled against Mr Quayson.
“I cannot understand how an MP can be restrained from carrying out his duties when the substantive case to give finality to the question of his legitimacy has not been determined.
“Or is it the case that the outcome of the substantive case has been predetermined against him?” Mr Mahama quizzed.
