The High Court in Accra has adjourned the criminal trial of Member of Parliament for Assin North, James Gyakye Quayson, to May 30, 2024.
In court on Thursday, May 23, counsel for the accused, Lawyer Tsatsu Tsikata, raised objections concerning the authentication and originality of the document filed by Mr. Alfred Tuah-Yeboah, Deputy Minister of Justice and Attorney General, about Hon. Gyakye Qyason’s Canadian citizenship.
However, Mr. Alfred Tuah-Yeboah rejected the claim stating that a verification was conducted at the Canadian High Commission to confirm the accused’s citizenship status.
He added that the original documents, which contain all evidence of the accused’s Canadian citizenship, were obtained and copies were provided to the accused’s counsel.
The trial Judge, Justice Mary Yanzuh therefore adjourned the case to May 30, 2024, for the trial to continue.
Background
Mr. Quayson is on trial for allegedly deceiving the Ministry of Foreign Affairs by making a false statement that he did not have dual citizenship in order to acquire a Ghanaian passport.
Mr. Quayson is facing charges of forgery and perjury in relation to certain alleged offences in the run-up to the 2020 Assin North parliamentary election.
He has pleaded not guilty to five counts of forgery of passport or travel certificate, knowingly making a false statutory declaration, perjury and false declaration for office.
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 (EC) to the effect that he (Quayson) did not owe any allegiance to a foreign country when he filed to contest as a candidate for the Assin North seat.
In court on Friday, April 12, the lawyers of Mr. Quayson demanded the original copies of documents in relation to their client’s passport application.
However, the court presided over by Justice Mary Yanzuh dismissed the demand indicating that the original documents can be dealt with during cross-examination hence having the documents looked at again is a repetition of what has already been heard.
