The Supreme Court ruling, which expunged James Gyakye Quayson from Parliament, is being interpreted by some Ghanaians, mostly the National Democratic Congress (NDC), as a ruling which did not serve justice.

Many of them go out of the way to say Article 94 (2a) does not intend to disqualify anyone who owed allegiance to another country from becoming a Member of Parliament (MP). And one other person, sought to educate Ghanaians that being said to owe allegiance to another country does not refer to holding dual citizenship.

That person is not well vested in the knowledge about allegiance to a country. For one thing, one could owe allegiance to another country without holding its citizenship, but no one can hold a citizenship of another country without owing allegiance to that country.

Because as one is claiming citizenship, that fellow must swear allegiance to the new country. And once that is done, that fellow cannot be said to be qualified to be member of Parliament.

Social media also carried out a story, in which a retired Appeal Court judge, Justice Isaac Douse, condemned the ruling. Justice Douse is incidentally being touted for the position of running mate for President John Mahama, so we must be careful, where he is coming from.

According to Justice Douse, the justices who presided over the case made a grave error by concluding that Gyakye Quayson was ineligible to contest in the 2023 elections. Adding that Quayson had sufficiently proven to the court that he had fulfilled his obligations to renounce his Canadian citizenship.

Justice Douse’s analogy that when you have proof that you have passed an examination, it is good enough to gain admission even when you do not have certificate, does not hold water.

The most authentic document which can be held as proof of passing your exams is the certificate and not the results posted on your answer sheet or results slip. What if they are fake? It certainly will not have any letterhead and official stamp on it, would it?

If Justice Douse had been on the Supreme Court and on that panel, he would have voted in favour of James Gyakye Quayson, based on his interpretation of Art. 94 (2a), but he cannot condemn the Apex Court simply because it did not think in the jaundice manner, as he thinks.

He should have come out to interpret Art 94 (2a) and stop talking about result slips versus certificates. It is not about Ghanaians abroad who work in foreign government being praise but only to come home to face unnecessary obstacles, it is all about proof of unalloyed allegiance.

Firstly, it was not the Supreme Court which came outwith Art 94 of the Constitution, it is only there to interpret it. The first casualty of Art. 94 (2a) was NDC’s Spio Garbrah and Justice Douse was no where to defend him.

The second was Adamu Sakande (NPP), who was effectively jailed. The third casualty is James Gyakye Quayson (NDC) who was disqualified by his party in 2012, 2016 and 2020 on the same issue of holding dual citizenship.

He was however pardoned by the National Office of the NDC and encouraged to file to contest even though he had not denounced his Canadian citizenship. Why did the NDC disqualified James Quayson, thrice?

So, what is Article 94 all about? Article 94 is all about “Qualification and Eligibility” to become a Member of Parliament. And this is the full chapter:

94. (1) Subject to the provisions of this article, a person shall not be qualified to be a member of Parliament unless – (a) he is a citizen of Ghana, has attained the age of twenty-one years and is a registered voter, (b) he is resident in the constituency for which he stands as a candidate for election to Parliament or has resided there for a total period of not less than five years out of the ten years immediately preceding the election for which he stands, or he hails from that constituency; and (c) he has paid all his taxes or made arrangements satisfactory to the appropriate authority for the payment of his taxes.

(2) A person shall not be qualified to be a member of Parliament if he – (a) owes allegiance to a country other than Ghana; or (b) has been adjudged or otherwise declared (i) bankrupt under any law in force in Ghana and has not been discharged; or (ii) to be of unsound mind or is detained as a criminal lunatic under any law in force in Ghana; or (c) has been convicted – (i) for high crime under this Constitution or high treason or treason or for an offence involving the security of the State, fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude; or (ii) for any other offence punishable by death or by a sentence of not less than ten years; or (iii) for an offence relating to, or connected with election under a law in force in Ghana at any time; or (d) has been found by the report of a commission or a committee of inquiry to be incompetent to hold public office or is a person in respect of whom a commission or committee of inquiry has found that while being a public officer he acquired assets unlawfully or defrauded the State or misused or abused his office, or wilfully acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the State, and the findings have not been set aside on appeal or judicial review; or (e) is under sentence of death or other sentence of imprisonment imposed on him by any court., or (f) is not qualified to be registered as a voter under any law relating to public elections; or (g) is otherwise disqualified by a law in force at the time of the coming into force of this Constitution, not being inconsistent with a provision of this Constitution.

(3) A person shall not be eligible to be a member of Parliament if he – (a) is prohibited from standing election by a law in force in Ghana by reason of his holding or acting in an office the functions of which involve a responsibility for or are connected with the conduct of, an election or responsibility for the compilation or revision of an electoral register, or (b) is a member of the Police Service, the Prisons Service, the Armed Forces, the Judicial Service, the Legal Service, the Civil Service, the Audit Service, the Parliamentary Service, the Statistical Service, the Fire Service, the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service, the Immigration Service, or the Internal Revenue Service; or (c) is a chief.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (d) of clause (2) of this article, in the case of any finding made by a commission or committee of inquiry which is not a judicial or quasi-judicial commission or committee of inquiry, without prejudice to any appeal against or judicial review of that finding, the finding shall not have the effect of disqualifying a person under that paragraph unless it has been confirmed by a Government white paper.

(5) A person shall not be taken to be disqualified to be a member of Parliament under paragraph (c) or (d) of clause (2) of this article if – (a) ten years or more have passed since the end of the sentence or the date of the publication of the report of the commission or committee of inquiry; or(b) he has been pardoned.

Now let us go through a few. Article 94 (1a), talks about the minimum age requirement of twenty-one years. Can someone who is twenty at the time of filing but would turn 21 before elections be allowed to file his papers to contest elections?

When voters registration is open, we are told by law that one has to attain the age of 18 before he can vote. Yet he cannot register before age 18 even if he would be 18 by the day of elections.

Article 94 (2bii), states that no one with an unsound mind can qualify to be MP. So, does it mean, if someone who is insane and under treatment at the psychiatric hospital he cannot file to contest elections, even though he would be discharged and certified sane before elections?

Article 94 (3b) states that no person who is a member of the Police Service, the Prisons Service, the Armed Forces, the Judicial Service, the Legal Service, the Civil Service, the Audit Service, the Parliamentary Service, the Statistical Service, the Fire Service, the Customs, Excise and Preventive Service, the Immigration Service, or the Internal Revenue Service is qualified to be MP. Does that mean you cannot file even when you would be retired before elections?

Article 94 (3c), states clearly that no chief can become an MP. What if his abdication process is on the way and he would be no longer a chief before elections.

Now the big question here is, what happens, in the case of a dual citizen, if a person who files could not secure his renunciation documents, orin the case of a psychiatric patient, his state of sanity which seemed to be getting better, suddenly relapses and he is worse off than before or in the case of a public servant, his resignation letter has been declined by his workplace or in the case of chief, his abdication is also declined, all before elections?

When news broke that the high court will be hearing James Gyekye Quayson’s perjury case on daily basis, the NDC is raising concerns as if this has never happened before. Twice this country witnessed presidential election petitions which took place daily, so what has changed here?

The NDC are screaming that the Supreme Court is to always come out with rulings that will unite the country. Does that include neglecting the truth? Rulings must be based on the truth and not on what will please people.

God speaks the truth even if that truth is not pleasing. The untruth gives false comfort and that is what the NDC wants.

The question is after the Supreme Court presents falsehood and it becomes law, what will happen one day when majority of the people’s expectations goes contrarily to the norm? Would the Supreme Court do a ‘U’-Turn?

It is time, all election petitions are given time limits. Our first presidential petition took eight months, the second was limited to forty-two days, about a month and a half. As for parliamentary election petitions, they always take forever.

It took four years before Ghanaians were told, in 2001, that it was Hon Isaac Amo who won the Ayawaso-Wuogon seat in 1996 and not Hon Rebecca Adotey of the NDC who sat through Parliament from 1997 to 2001? This cannot be accepted.

The Supreme Court has spoken and the law must work. To the Apex Court as at the time of filing to contest the Assin North seat, James Quayson was not qualified because he was a dual citizen. What at all can’t some Ghanaians understand?

Hon Daniel Dugan