Trial of James Gyakye Quayson: Assin North MP heads to Supreme Court to halt day-to-day trial

In a bid to halt the day-to-day trial proceedings, the lawyers of Assin North MP James Gyakye Quayson are taking his case to the Supreme Court.

His legal team have filed for an interpretation of Article 19 of the Constitution, which revolves around the principle of fair trial.

They aim to address the question of whether a fair trial entails the accused being present in court every day.

Abraham Amaliba, the Director for Legal Affairs of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), spoke on behalf of Quayson's lawyers, saying, "We want the Supreme Court to interpret Article 19. What does free trial mean? Does it mean the accused person must be coming to court every day? Is that what fair trial means?" he said in an interview with Joynews.

Amaliba further questioned the disparity in treatment between Quayson's case and that of another individual.

He stated, "Indeed, I am for that Vormawor, the fixed country convener, has pleaded with his court to try him every day, and the court said no. So, between the person who is alleged to stage a coup and the person who signed a statutory declaration, who is so dangerous to the country that his trial must be done every day?"

The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Quayson's application for a stay of proceedings at the High Court on July 19.

His lawyer, Tsatsu Tsikata, argued that events had tainted the proceedings at the lower court, potentially affecting the fair trial of the case.

However, Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame opposed the application, deeming it unmeritorious and alleging that it was a tactic to avoid trial.

Dame dismissed the claim that prejudicial comments made by the president and other ministers impacted the High Court's decision, stating that they were made after the ruling.

He also accused Quayson of attempting to use the application to avoid trial and alleged a predetermined agenda by the MP's lawyers to imprison him.

A three-member panel of judges carefully considered the arguments and ultimately dismissed the application.

They ruled that no exceptional circumstances were presented to justify a stay of proceedings and that the alleged prejudicial comments were extrajudicial and had no impact on the trial judge's decision.

YNA/OGB