The Supreme Court is poised to deliver a ruling on Richard Dela Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi’s application for an interlocutory injunction against Parliament transmitting the anti-LGBTQ bill to the presidency.
The 5-member panel, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, will not issue a composite ruling. Instead, they will decide today, Wednesday, July 17, whether to prevent Parliament from sending the bill to the president for assent.
During the application hearing, the panel included Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Prof Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Ernest Gaewu, and Justice Yaw Darko Asare.
Also Read: 36 more cases of Dengue Fever confirmed
In the case of Dr. Amanda Odoi vs. the Speaker and Attorney General, the applicant’s lawyer, Ernest Arko, argued that both the Speaker and the Clerk to Parliament should be restrained by the Supreme Court until the substantive matter is resolved. He asserted that irreparable harm would be inflicted on the applicant if the injunction is not granted, whereas the Speaker would not suffer if it is.
The plaintiff, seeking to have the bill declared null and void, argues that its passage violates several provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including Articles 33(5), 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2), and 21(1) (a) (b) (d) and (e).
Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame contended that the bill should not have been considered by Parliament in the first place, as it violated Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution. This article stipulates that Parliament cannot proceed with a bill imposing taxation or charges on public funds unless introduced by the President or on his behalf.
Dame argued that the Supreme Court should determine whether substantial questions of law have been raised by the plaintiff when considering an interlocutory injunction. He maintained that the bill should be declared null and void due to non-compliance with the required procedures.
Opposing the application, the Speaker’s lawyer, Thaddeus Sory, argued that no harm would be inflicted on the applicant if the request is denied. He claimed the application repeats earlier arguments and should not be given weight by the court. Sory asserted that the legislative process is ongoing, and enjoining Parliament from transmitting the bill would usurp its powers.
Also Read: 36 more cases of Dengue Fever confirmed
In the case of broadcaster and lawyer Richard Dela Sky, his counsel, Paa Kwesi Abaidoo, highlighted the absence of a fiscal impact analysis as a basis for challenging the bill’s passage.
Sky seeks an order to restrain the Speaker and Clerk of Parliament from presenting The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024, to the President, and an order to prevent the President from assenting to it. He argues that such actions would contravene constitutional protections of Ghanaians’ liberties and rights.
Attorney General Dame has argued that the bill should be stayed until the substantive suit is finally resolved.
