The ongoing legal proceedings against James Gyakye Quayson, the Member of Parliament for Assin North, have taken a new turn with the prosecution’s submission of further disclosures to the Accra High Court. Mr. Quayson faces a five-count charge, including deceit of a public officer, forgery of passport or travel certificates, knowingly making a false statutory declaration, perjury, and false declaration for office. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges and is currently out on bail. The latest development centers around these new disclosures, which the prosecution presented before Justice Mary Maame Ekua Yanzuh. The defense, led by Mr. Tsatsu Tsikata, acknowledged receiving the disclosures but argued that they hold no significance to their case. This contention arises from the history of the prosecution’s handling of disclosures in this case, which the defense characterized as a pattern of non-compliance and abuse of court processes.
The crux of the defense’s argument revolves around the timeline of events related to these disclosures. According to Mr. Tsikata, the court initially ordered the prosecution to provide further disclosures in December 2024. The prosecution, however, failed to comply with this order and subsequently requested an extension. Despite being granted additional time, the prosecution again failed to meet the deadline. This prompted the court to order written submissions from both parties. The defense diligently filed their submissions on February 27, 2025, a day after the February 26 deadline, attributing the delay to the late availability of certain court notes. The defense now contends that the prosecution’s latest submission of disclosures, after failing to comply with previous court orders and after the submission of written arguments, constitutes an abuse of court processes.
The defense’s argument emphasizes the prejudice caused by the prosecution’s delayed disclosure. Mr. Tsikata argued that the prosecution’s failure to adhere to the court’s timeline has hampered the defense’s ability to prepare adequately. The delayed disclosures, according to the defense, come at a stage where written submissions have already been filed, suggesting a deliberate attempt to disrupt the proceedings and disadvantage the defense. This alleged tactical maneuvering, they contend, undermines the principle of fair trial and disrespects the court’s authority.
The defense’s position is further strengthened by the argument that the prosecution’s actions undermine the efficiency of the judicial process. The repeated failures to comply with court orders and the subsequent requests for extensions have unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings. This not only burdens the court with managing procedural complexities but also delays the resolution of the case, prolonging the uncertainty surrounding Mr. Quayson’s parliamentary status. The defense’s contention, therefore, is not merely about the content of the disclosures but also about the prosecution’s procedural conduct and its impact on the overall fairness and efficiency of the trial.
The prosecution’s actions, as portrayed by the defense, raise serious concerns about the integrity of the legal process. The repeated non-compliance with court orders, coupled with the late submission of potentially crucial evidence, creates an impression of a deliberate strategy to undermine the defense’s ability to mount a robust and effective legal challenge. This perception of unfairness erodes public trust in the judicial system, which relies heavily on the perception of impartiality and adherence to established procedures.
Justice Mary Maame Ekua Yanzuh now faces the task of assessing the validity of the prosecution’s latest disclosures and the defense’s claims of procedural impropriety. The court’s decision will have significant implications for the trajectory of the case and for the broader principles of fair trial and due process. The adjournment to April 9, 2025 provides the court with the necessary time to carefully consider these complex legal issues and render a decision that upholds the principles of justice and ensures a fair trial for Mr. Quayson. The outcome of this procedural wrangling will undoubtedly be closely watched by legal observers and the public alike.
