Supreme Court affirms decision to quash injunction on gazetting of Amewu as MP

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an application for a review of its decision on the injunction granted by a High Court in Ho stopping the gazetting of John Peter Amewu as the Member of Parliament for Hohoe in the Volta Region.

Is allowance instantly strangers applauded

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed an application for a review of its decision on the injunction granted by a High Court in Ho stopping the gazetting of John Peter Amewu as the Member of Parliament for Hohoe in the Volta Region.

A 7-member panel of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 30, 2021, affirmed the apex court’s earlier decision to quash the injunction.

In its earlier judgment rendered by a 5-member panel, the court quashed an injunction granted by the High Court sitting in Ho against the gazetting of John Peter Amewu.

The court had reasoned that Mr. Amewu although a beneficiary, had not caused or contributed to the denial of their right to vote as had been argued.

The Supreme Court today [Tuesday] however denied the SALL residents an application for the appeal they filed for the decision.

The court’s reasons for the judgment will however be disclosed later.

Some residents of Santrokofi, Akpafu, Likpe, and Lolobi (SALL) filed a case at a Ho High Court challenging the legitimacy of John Peter Amewu’s election as Hohoe MP-elect.

Their case was based on the fact that their respective areas did not vote in the parliamentary elections hence their rights have been breached.

The Court in hearing the case granted an injunction against the gazetting of Mr. Amewu of MP.

But then Deputy Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame filed an application at the Supreme Court urging it to restrain the Ho High Court from hearing the matter.

The Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the alleged breach of the rights of SALL residents was not caused by Mr. Amewu and therefore any such challenge must be done through an election petition and not a human rights action at the High Court.

The plaintiffs after the ruling filed for review but the court affirmed its earlier decision.

Source:Citinewsroom