The Supreme Court is expected to declare rulings on two applications filed by Richard Dela Sky, and researcher Dr Amanda Odoi seeking to injunct Parliament from transmitting the anti-LGBTQ+ bill to the President for its assent.
The rulings of the panel, which also consisted of Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Ernest Gaewu, and Justice Yaw Darko Asare, will be separate of each application.
In a televised court proceeding in the first case titled Dr. Amanda Odoi vs the Speaker and Attorney General, counsel for the applicant, led by Ernest Arko, relied on processes filed.
Counsel argued that, both the Speaker and the Clerk to Parliament should be restrained by the Apex Court until after the determination of the substantive matter.
He contended that irreparable damage and harm would be visited heavily on the applicant, if the interlocutory injunction is not granted, since the speaker has nothing to suffer if refused.
Godfred Yeboah Dame, said, though he is not stating his position on the matter, “what the (Supreme) Court ought to look at in granting an application for interlocutory injunction is whether substantial questions of law have been raised by the Plaintiff.”
Counsel for the Speaker, Thaddeus Sorry, opposed the application on the grounds that no violation would be occasioned against the applicant if the request was refused.
He said the application is a repetition of what had earlier been put before the Court by the Applicant, which was later struck out.
*Constitutional Provisions*
The parties all made references to Article 108(a)(i)(ii)(iii) and made their argument for and against.
Per Articles 108(a), it states as follows; Parliament shall not, unless the bill is introduced or the motion is introduced by, or on behalf of, the President (a), proceed upon a bill, including an amendment to a bill, that, in the opinion of the person presiding, makes provision for any of the following:
(I) The imposition of taxation or the alteration of taxation otherwise than by reduction;
(ii) Or the imposition of a charge on the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana or the alteration of any such charge otherwise than by reduction, or
(ii) The payment, issue or withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana of any moneys not charged on the Consolidated Fund or any increase in the amount of that payment, issue or withdrawal;
*Richard Sky case*
In a similar but separate application, lawyer for Richard Dela Sky, Paa Kwesi Abaidoo, pointed out the absence of fiscal impact analysis, which formed the basis for the passage of the Bill.
But, though Counsel for Parliament, Thaddeus Sory sought leave to be allowed to file it as a supplementary affidavit, the Court said, it could only be useful in the substantive matter and not the application for interlocutory injunctions.
The Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame argued that the Bill ought to be stayed until the final determination of the substantive suit.
*Reliefs sought*
Among the reliefs sought in Richard Sky’s writ is 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.
The Plaintiff is also asking the Court for 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 the liberties and rights of Ghanaians.
“An injunction barring any attempts to enforce the provisions of The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2024, particularly those criminalizing same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts,” he asked.
