Speaker asked to file anti-LGBTQ+ statement of case in 7 days
The Supreme Court (SC) yesterday gave the Speaker of Parliament, Mr Alban Sumana Kingsford Bagbin, seven days to file his statement of case in the anti-LGBTQ+ matter.
This was after counsel for the Speaker of Parliament, Mr Raphael Bannerman, moved a motion on notice and asked the court, presided over by Justice Yaw Darko Asare, to grant his client an extension of time to file the statement.
On February 28, Parliament passed the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill into law.
But, even before the Speaker transmitted the bill to the President, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, for his assent to the bill, a broadcast journalist, and private legal practitioner, Mr Richard
Dela Sky, filed a motion at the SC to injunct him from undertaking his constitutional duty.
On Wednesday, July 17, a five-member Supreme Court panel chaired by the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Araba Sackey Torkono, in deferring its ruling, indicated that it will give the decision in the injunction application and the substantive application together in an expedited trial.
When the motion for extension of time was moved by Mr Banner, who held the brief of Mr Thaddeus Story, the substantive counsel of the Speaker, counsel for Mr Sky, Mr Papa Kwesi Abaidoo, and Mrs Sylvia Adusei, a Chief State Attorney, who represented the state, did not oppose the motion.
The Supreme Court is hearing two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill.
Mr Sky and Dr Amanda Odoi, a researcher, had filed various suits challenging the passage of the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill and its possible assent by the President.
In a writ invoking the jurisdiction of the apex court to interpret and enforce the Constitution, Mr Sky is seeking an order from the court to restrain the Speaker and Clerk of Parliament from presenting the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill to the President for his assent.
He is further seeking an injunction against any attempt to enforce the Bill, especially the aspect that criminalises same sex relationship.
The writ filed at the Supreme Court on March 5, 2024, contends that the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill contravenes many provisions in the Constitution such as Article 12 (1) which enjoins all arms of government to respect and uphold the fundamental human rights of all persons, Article 15(1) which protects the dignity of all persons and Article 18(2) which protects the privacy of people.
Other provisions, he argues, are Article 17(1) which provides for equality before the law, and Article 21(a) and (b) which protect freedom of speech and thought.
The plaintiff is, therefore, seeking a declaration from the Supreme Court that the Bill sins against all the above stated provisions, as well as Articles 106 and 108, which dictate the mode by which Parliament can pass a Bill.
Again, Mr Sky is seeking a declaration from the court that at the time the Bill was passed, Parliament lacked the requisite quorum as stipulated by Articles 102 and 104 of the Constitution.
Dr Odoi, on the other hand, is also at the Supreme Court with a case that the Speaker of Parliament and Parliament in general had violated the Constitution.
It is her case that the Speaker of Parliament breached Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution by not giving an opinion on whether the Bill when implemented could lead to financial consequences on the country through a charge on the consolidated fund.
BY MALIK SULLEMANA
The post Speaker asked to file anti-LGBTQ+ statement of case in 7 days appeared first on Ghanaian Times.
