Anti-LGBT+ Bill: AG speaks after Supreme Court adjourns journalist’s case

The Attorney General, Godfred Dame, has refuted claims that the Supreme Court stalled in hearing Richard Dela Sky’s application seeking a declaration that the Promotion of Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly known as the anti-gay bill, is null and of no effect.

He stated that the public impression that the court intentionally delayed hearing the case is erroneous because he filed the case on time. However, with the load of cases in recent times, it was not simple for the case to be heard as soon as expected.

Speaking to the media after the Supreme Court hearing of the case on May 8, 2024, Dame said, "That impression [that the hearing was delayed] is misinformed, and this is actually one of the matters that has been heard early.

"When I was in private practice, I filed processes in June, and the courts heard them in October and November. Gone are the days when one's processes are filed, it takes about four months before the Supreme Court hears them.

"The Supreme Court hears cases taking into account the schedule of the court and the business the court has, and all that, so there is nothing that has delayed this matter, and as I said, the most important thing about this matter is the transparency," he said, according to citinewsroom.com.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, leading the sitting at the Supreme Court, adjourned Richard Sky’s case to May 17, 2024, to enable the applicant to file a fresh motion paper with a supporting affidavit and statement of the case.

On March 5, 2024, GhanaWeb reported that the journalist filed a motion before the Supreme Court while urging President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to refrain from assenting to "The Promotion of Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024."

The move comes amidst growing concerns and controversies surrounding the legislation, which has sparked nationwide debate.

The motion filed by Richard Sky outlines several reliefs sought, each grounded in constitutional provisions and fundamental rights.

Among the reliefs sought are declarations that the passage of the bill by parliament contravened various articles of the constitution, rendering it null, void, and of no effect.

Moreover, the motion challenges the Speaker of Parliament's decision to allow the passage of the bill, alleging a contravention of constitutional provisions regarding the imposition of charges on public funds and the authority of parliament.

In addition to questioning the legality of the bill's passage, the motion asserts that parliament lacked the requisite quorum to approve the legislation, further highlighting procedural irregularities.

One of the most significant aspects of the motion is the request for an injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk of Parliament from presenting the bill to the president for assent.

Furthermore, the motion seeks to prevent the president from assenting to the bill, citing concerns over its potential impacts on individual freedoms and rights.

Particularly contentious are provisions within the bill criminalizing same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts, prompting calls for judicial intervention to safeguard human rights.

The nature of the reliefs sought by the journalist are as follows:

i. A declaration that upon the true and proper interpretation of Article 33(5) of the Constitution of 1992, in light of Articles 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2), and 21(1) (a) (b) (d) and (e) of the Constitution, the passage of "The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024" by Parliament on 28* February 2024 contravened the Constitution and is to that extent null, void, and of no effect.

ii. A declaration that the Speaker of Parliament contravened Artiele 108(a)(i) of the Constitution, in light of Article 296(a)(b) and (e), by admitting and allowing Parliament to proceed upon and pass "The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024" into law as the same imposes a charge upon the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.

iii. A declaration that Parliament exceeded its authority under Articles 106(2) and 108(a)(ii) in passing "The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024," as the same imposes a charge upon the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.

iv. A declaration that, upon the true and proper interpretation of Articles 102 and 104(1) of the Constitution. Parliament lacked the requisite quorum to pass "The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024."

v. An order restraining the Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting "The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024" to the President of the Republic for his assent.

vi. An order restraining the President of the Republic from assenting to "The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024," as such action will directly contravene the Constitutional safeguards of liberties and rights of Ghanaians.

vii. An injunction barring any attempts to enforce the provisions of "The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2024," particularly those criminalising same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts.

viii. Such further orders or directions as to this Honourable Court may seem meet.

SB/AE