![[Sakande And Quayson] Why The Two Cases Are Not The Same](https://planbfmonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/a6981328ca8b40e4bd58027ae60f91eb.png)
He only took steps to renounce his citizenship after he realized the danger involved in the case against him.
In the case of Hon. Quayson, as far back as 2019, made an application for his citizenship in Canada to be renounced so that he could serve his country Ghana.
He got his certificate to that effect in November 2020 before the 7th December elections. In the Zanetor’s case where the courts held that ‘election’ in their interpretation.
It meant national election and not party elections, Mr. Quayson was a valid Ghanaian citizen before the 7th December elections which in its true sense, should refer to national elections and was therefore qualified to contest.
These two cases are not the same. Those, including the Attorney-General, who are seeking to obfuscate the issues and make them similar (as there are no two cases that are the same) are doing so intentionally.
Perhaps for something they know that we don’t know, just so that when the final verdict comes, their narratives would be employed to guide public debate concealing the vital differences in these cases.
He only took steps to renounce his citizenship after he realized the danger involved in the case against him.
In the case of Hon. Quayson, as far back as 2019, made an application for his citizenship in Canada to be renounced so that he could serve his country Ghana.
He got his certificate to that effect in November 2020 before the 7th December elections. In the Zanetor’s case where the courts held that ‘election’ in their interpretation.
It meant national election and not party elections, Mr. Quayson was a valid Ghanaian citizen before the 7th December elections which in its true sense, should refer to national elections and was therefore qualified to contest.
These two cases are not the same. Those, including the Attorney-General, who are seeking to obfuscate the issues and make them similar (as there are no two cases that are the same) are doing so intentionally.
Perhaps for something they know that we don’t know, just so that when the final verdict comes, their narratives would be employed to guide public debate concealing the vital differences in these cases.
He only took steps to renounce his citizenship after he realized the danger involved in the case against him.
In the case of Hon. Quayson, as far back as 2019, made an application for his citizenship in Canada to be renounced so that he could serve his country Ghana.
He got his certificate to that effect in November 2020 before the 7th December elections. In the Zanetor’s case where the courts held that ‘election’ in their interpretation.
It meant national election and not party elections, Mr. Quayson was a valid Ghanaian citizen before the 7th December elections which in its true sense, should refer to national elections and was therefore qualified to contest.
These two cases are not the same. Those, including the Attorney-General, who are seeking to obfuscate the issues and make them similar (as there are no two cases that are the same) are doing so intentionally.
Perhaps for something they know that we don’t know, just so that when the final verdict comes, their narratives would be employed to guide public debate concealing the vital differences in these cases.
He only took steps to renounce his citizenship after he realized the danger involved in the case against him.
In the case of Hon. Quayson, as far back as 2019, made an application for his citizenship in Canada to be renounced so that he could serve his country Ghana.
He got his certificate to that effect in November 2020 before the 7th December elections. In the Zanetor’s case where the courts held that ‘election’ in their interpretation.
It meant national election and not party elections, Mr. Quayson was a valid Ghanaian citizen before the 7th December elections which in its true sense, should refer to national elections and was therefore qualified to contest.
These two cases are not the same. Those, including the Attorney-General, who are seeking to obfuscate the issues and make them similar (as there are no two cases that are the same) are doing so intentionally.
Perhaps for something they know that we don’t know, just so that when the final verdict comes, their narratives would be employed to guide public debate concealing the vital differences in these cases.
Discussion about this post