Supreme Court dismisses Gyakye Quayson’s application to quash High Court ruling.
The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by James Gyakye Quayson seeking to quash a decision of the high court not to allow for further disclosures in the criminal trial his facing.
The lawyers representing Gyakye Quayson had filed a certiorari application, arguing that the trial judge had erred in denying their request to direct the Attorney General’s office to provide additional disclosures.
The contention of Gyakye Quayson’s lawyers was that the judge made a mistake by not allowing their application to be heard. They further argued that the judge based her decision on a document from the Attorney General, which lacked an accompanying affidavit.
This document, in response to Gyakye Quayson’s request for more disclosures, indicated that no further disclosures were available.
Justin Tarewagya, who represented Gyakye Quayson, objected to the court’s reliance on the non-affidavit document. He argued that the court should not have considered it as it lacked the necessary legal weight.
On the other hand, Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame opposed the certiorari application, claiming it was incomplete. He asserted that although the application was by Gyakye Quayson, the supporting deposition lacked proof of authority from the lawyer, which is a violation of court rules, rendering the application incomplete.
Additionally, the Attorney General refuted claims that Gyakye Quayson’s lawyers were not allowed to present their arguments during the high court proceedings.
He cited excerpts from the high court’s records to support his stance.
After careful consideration of the arguments presented, the Supreme Court dismissed Gyakye Quayson’s application, ruling that it lacked merit.
Consequently, the decision of the high court regarding further disclosures in the criminal trial stands.
READ ALSO: Ato Forson Trial: Chief Justice rejects request for case transfer
Thanks for reading “Supreme Court dismisses Gyakye Quayson’s application to quash High Court ruling.”
