Anti-gay Bill: SC to deliver judgement tomorrow Dec. 18

The Supreme Court (SC) will deliver its judgment on December 18 regarding two separate actions challenging the passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly known as the anti-LGBTQ+ bill.

A seven-member panel of the Court, led by Justice Avril Lovelace-Johnson, adopted all the issues raised by the parties involved in the case. The Court instructed counsel for Richard Dela Sky and Papa Kwashieman Abaidoo to submit an amended statement of case by November 22. The Parliament of Ghana and the Attorney-General were given a deadline of November 27 to file their replies.

The bill, which was passed by Parliament on February 28, 2024, is often referred to as the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill. However, before the Speaker could transmit the bill to President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for assent, broadcast journalist and private legal practitioner Mr. Sky filed a motion seeking to prevent the Speaker from carrying out this constitutional duty.

On Wednesday, July 17, 2024, a five-member SC panel chaired by Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Sackey Torkono deferred its ruling, indicating it would deliver a joint decision on both the injunction application and the main constitutional challenge in an expedited manner.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing two lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill.

Mr. Sky, along with Dr. Amanda Odoi, a researcher, filed separate lawsuits challenging both the passage of the bill and its potential assent by the President. In his writ, Mr. Sky is requesting the Court to restrain the Speaker and Clerk of Parliament from presenting the bill to the President. He is also seeking an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the bill, especially provisions that criminalize same-sex relationships.

Mr. Sky’s writ, filed on March 5, 2024, argues that the bill violates several constitutional provisions, including Article 12(1) (which protects fundamental human rights), Article 15(1) (which safeguards personal dignity), and Article 18(2) (which protects privacy). He further claims that the bill breaches Articles 17(1) (guaranteeing equality before the law), and Articles 21(a) and (b) (protecting freedom of speech and thought). Additionally, Mr. Sky is seeking a declaration from the Court that the bill conflicts with Articles 106 and 108, which outline the proper procedure for passing legislation.

Mr. Sky also argues that Parliament lacked the necessary quorum for passing the bill, as specified by Articles 102 and 104 of the Constitution.

Meanwhile, Dr. Odoi’s case asserts that the Speaker of Parliament and Parliament, in general, violated the Constitution. She argues that the Speaker failed to provide an opinion on whether the implementation of the bill could have financial consequences for the country, as required by Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution.