The perjury and forgery trial against James Gyakye Quayson will be heard on day-to-day basis beginning today June 20, 2023, the High Court in Accra.
Quayson however on Monday applied for a review of the court ruling for the case to be heard on daily basis.
Charges
It is the case of the prosecution that Mr Quayson allegedly made a false statement to the Passport Office that he did not hold a passport to another country when he applied for a Ghanaian Passport.
In addition, the prosecution has accused Mr Quayson of making a false declaration to the Electoral Commission to the effect that he (Quayson) did not owe any allegiance to a foreign country when he filed to contest as candidate for the Assin North seat.
In court last week
In the court presided over by Justice Mary Maame Ekue Yanzuh last week, the court turned down a prayer by Quayson’s lawyer, Justin Terriwajjah which sought to have the trial continued after the Assin North by-election slated for June 27, 2023.
Arguments
Counsel argued that his client was embarking on a national duty in a bid to represent the people of Assin North in parliament, hence the need to continue the trial after the by-election for Quayson to have a leveled playing field in the campaign.
However, the Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, who described the decision by Quayson to contest the by-election as a “voluntary and selfish quest” opposed to the prayer stressing that nobody had given Quayson a national assignment.
He argued that considering the charges leveled against Quayson, he could be convicted and jailed if found guilty, hence the need to trial the case expeditiously to bring clarity on Quayson’s status.
He, therefore, prayed the court to hear the case on day-to-day basis, beginning next week.
Mr Terriwajjah agreed to the trial being conducted on day-to-day basis but prayed for that to be done only after the by-election.
His prayer was dismissed subsequently by the court.
The Court has since fixed June 20, 21, and 23 for the trial to continue.
Quayson, who is facing charges of forgery and perjury in relation to certain alleged offences in the run up to the 2020 Assin North parliamentary election, will have his lawyers to continue the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness.
The accused, Quayson, who is contesting the by-election on the ticket of the National Democratic Congress was present in court.
State prosecutors have charged Mr Quayson on five counts of forgery of passport or travel certificate, knowingly making a false statutory declaration, perjury and false declaration for office.
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
I, JUSTIN PWAVRA TERIWAJAH of Flat No. E3, Accra Technical University, Accra Central in the Greater Accra Region, Accra do make oath and say as follows:
1. That I am the solicitor for the Accused/Applicant herein.
2. That I have the authority of the Accused/Applicant to swear to this affidavit in respect of the instant application for are view of certain orders of the court -after the court heard an oral application by the Attorney-General on 16th June 2023 – that the case be heard from day to day and, consequently, fixing 20th to 23rd June 2023 for continuation of the trial.
3. That the oral application by the Attorney General, who was appearing for the first time in this trial, for the case to be heard from day to day was made without any notice to the accused person or his counsel and took us by surprise.
4. That the said application was made after I had notified the court about the continuing failure of the prosecution to make full disclosure of documents that the prosecution is required to make to the defence.
5. That there was pending before this court an application for orders of the court to ensure full disclosure by the prosecution of documents in possession of the prosecution and some of the said documents were only presented to me in court on 1 6 June 2023.
6. That the need for full disclosures before trial has been authoritatively determined by the Supreme Court and is also contained in Practice Directions of the Chief Justice.
7. That I had also indicated to the court that the accused is a candidate in a Parliamentary by-election due to be held on 27th June 2023 in respect of the Assin North constituency, and that this being “a national assignment” that he was engaged in, further hearing of the trial should be after the said by-election date, by which time also the further disclosures required to be made by the prosecution would have been made.
8. That, in response to my indication to the court, the Attorney-General made extremely prejudicial, unjustified and insulting remarks to the effect that the accused was “irresponsible in putting himself up for election” knowing he is facing a criminal trial which could land him in jail. The Attorney-General claimed categorically that the accused was not on a national assignment.
9. That the Attorney-General, then, proceeded with the application for day-to-day hearing of the case which led to the orders of the court which this application is in respect of.
10. That the extremely prejudicial, unjustified and insulting remarks of the Attorney-General amount to a blatant denial of the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until he is proved guilty.
11. Further, the said extremely prejudicial, unjustified and insulting remarks of the Attorney-General seek to prejudice the outcome of the trial and amount to a denial of the constitutional right of the accused to a fair trial.
12. That the said extremely prejudicial, unjustified and insulting remarks of the Attorney-General would also deny the people of Assin North constituency the right to vote for a candidate of their choice, which is also a constitutional right.
13. That the said extremely prejudicial, unjustified and insulting remarks of the Attorney-General would also deny the accused person the constitutional right to participate in the political activity of campaigning for a public election in which he is a candidate.
14. That the election of a Member of Parliament for the Assin North Constituency is of tremendous national significance in the nation’s democratic course, particularly as the people of the said constituency have been denied representation in Parliament by an interlocutory injunction of the Supreme Court in April 2022.
15. That the said extremely prejudicial, unjustified and insulting remarks of the Attorney-General must be taken in the context of a clear determination of the Government of which the Attorney-General is a member, to disable the accused person, who decisively won the Parliamentary election for Assin North constituency on 7 December 2020, from representing the people of
Assin North, such determination being manifested in the position taken by the Attorney-General in the case in the Supreme Court which led to the need for the by-election in the Assin North constituency.
16. That, by the said extremely prejudicial, unjustified and insulting remarks of the Attorney General and the application thereupon made to this court, the Attorney-General is effectively misusing the criminal trial for campaigning against the accused person while seeking to deprive the accused person of the opportunity to conduct his campaign.
17. That the orders of the court for day-to-day hearing of the trial from 20th to 23rd June 2023 would severely hamper the accused in the conduct of his campaign to be elected and unfairly benefit his opponent in the election.
18. That the said extremely prejudicial, unjustified and insulting remarks of the Attorney-General must also be taken in the context of public remarks by other opponents of the accused person, in the same party as the Attorney-General, that, even if the accused were to win in the forthcoming by-election, he would be jailed at all costs, suggesting a predetermined outcome to this trial, exactly as implied also by the Attorney-General.
19. That the said extremely prejudicial, unjustified and insulting remarks of the Attorney-General cast decisions of the court in a bad light as they create the impression, however wrongly, that the accused should not have put himself forward in the by-election on account of this trial, and, indeed, that there is a predetermined outcome to this trial.
20. That, in any case, the Supreme Court has set 22nd June 2023 for the hearing of an application filed on 2nd June 2023 on behalf of the accused person for extension of time to file an application for review of the decision of the Supreme Court delivered on 174 May 2023 which led to the holding of the by- election.
21. That the said application in the Supreme Court is on notice to the Attorney- General. I exhibit herewith, marked “A”, the motion paper only in respect of this application which shows the return date of 2nd June, 2023.
22. That, having obtained on 5 ‘ June 2023 the full judgment of the Supreme Court in respect of the decision delivered on 174 May 2023, lawyers for the accused person/applicant have determined that the said judgment is riddled with fundamental errors which constitute exceptional circumstances for the exercise of the powers of review that the Supreme Court has under the 1992 Constitution.
23. That between today and the hearing of the said application ni the Supreme Court on 2nd June 2023, lawyers for the accused person/applicant are working on a further process that is intended to be filed before the hearing in the Supreme Court and require time to do so effectively, which time would not be available should the criminal trial also be continuing day to day from 204 to 23rd June 2023.
24. That the application in the Supreme Court on 2nd June 2023 for extension of time for an application for review is being contested, making it all the more important that the lawyers for the applicant therein, who are also the lawyers for the accused/applicant herein, should devote more attention to preparation for the said hearing than they might otherwise have done.
25. That because of the unexpected nature of the oral application made by the Attorney-General in this court for expedited hearings and because the additional dates of 22nd and 23rd June, 2023 were fixed by the court itself without my input after which the next case was called, I did not have the opportunity to draw this court’s attention to the fact that the decision of the court to include 22nd June 2023 in the hearing dates for continuation of the trial would occasion a clash of court dates with the Supreme Court.
26. That, individually and in their combined effect, the incomplete disclosures by the prosecution even as at 1 5 June 2023, the extremely prejudicial and unjustified remarks of the Attorney-General in court on 16th June 2023 which occasioned the orders of the court, the participation of the accused in the 27t June 2023 Parliamentary by-election for the Assin North constituency, the clash of court dates with the Supreme Court and the need for lawyers representing the accused/applicant also in the application before the Supreme Court to complete and file the intended further process and prepare for the hearing on 22nd June 2023 justify a review and/or variation by this Honourable Court of its decision on 1 6 June 2023 to have day to day hearings in this trial from 20th to 23rd June 2023.
27. That no prejudice whatsoever would be occasioned to the prosecution by this Honourable Court setting dates after 274 June 2023 for the continuation of the trial, whilst there is clear prejudice to the accused/applicant – as shown herein – if the court maintains its orders of 16th June 2023.
28. That, in the light of all of the above, it is most reasonable and in the interest of justice that this Honourable Court should review and/or vary its orders for day-to-day hearings from 20th to 23rd June 2023 before the Assin North Constituency Parliamentary by-election set for 27″ June 2023.
29. That having regard particularly to the said extremely prejudicial, unjustified and insulting remarks of the Attorney-General, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
30. WHEREFORE I swear to this affidavit in support of the application herein.
Source: graphic.com.gh
