The High Court in Accra has dismissed James Gyakye Quayson’s motion seeking to halt the trial from continuing until the Assin-North by-election has been conducted on Tuesday, June 27, 2023.
In a ruling Friday [June 23], the Court presided over by Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh said its decision to continue the case on June 20, 21, and 23 on a day-to-day basis was within the law.
The presiding judge added that lawyers for the accused failed to prove that the orders made contravened the law to warrant a review.
“The only new information is the alleged prejudicial comments made by the Attorney-General.
“These assertions are not relevant for me to review my decision”, Justice Yanzuh added stressing that adjournments were at the discretion of the court.
The trial has been adjourned to June 29, 2023 for Quayson’s lawyers to continue the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness.
Lawyers for Quayson, has since the filing of the review motion, always indicated that they were not against the day-to-day hearing of the case but needed the trial to be heard on a daily basis only after the by-elections in Assin-North to enable Quayson, who is contesting on the ticket of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) to participate fully in the activities of the elections.
Quayson, who is facing charges of forgery and perjury concerning certain alleged offences in the run-up to the 2020 Assin North parliamentary election, is contesting the by-election in the constituency on the ticket of NDC.
On June 16, 2023, the court ruled that it would hear the case on a day-to-day basis.
That was after the court had turned down a prayer by Quayson’s lawyer, which sought to have the trial continued after the Assin North by-election slated for June 27, 2023 to enable Quayson to concentrate on activities leading to the by-election.
The prayer followed an oral application made by the Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame to hear the case on a daily basis.
But lawyers for Quayson filed the motion for the court to review its decision to hear the case on a day-to-day basis until the by-election has been conducted.
Details of the motion, indicate that on the day the A-G orally applied for the Court to hear the case on a day-to-day basis, he made certain comments which they described as insulting and prejudicial.
In their affidavit in support of the motion, Quayson’s lawyers said they were working on a further process in a bid to file a review application of the Supreme Court’s decision which barred Quayson from holding himself as an MP.
In addition, the lawyers argued that the dates set by the High Court for hearing the trial would clash with the dates set by the Supreme Court dates in respect of the review processes.
The lawyers added that on the day the High Court ruled in favour of the Attorney-General to hear the case on a daily basis, they were not given the opportunity to draw attention to the dates set by the Supreme Court.
The lawyers further argued in the motion that the case at the Supreme Court required more attention, hence the need to vary the order.