Supreme Court to decide anti-gay bill lawsuits on July 17

The Supreme Court has scheduled Wednesday, July 17, 2024, to deliver rulings on two high-profile lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Parliament’s passage of the controversial Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.

Broadcast journalist Richard Dela Sky and researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi have filed separate lawsuits contesting the bill.

Mr. Sky is seeking a declaration that the bill breaches several provisions of the 1992 constitution and violates fundamental human rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Dr. Odoi’s lawsuit raises specific concerns about the bill’s provisions and seeks a restraining order to prevent the Speaker, the Attorney General, and the Clerk of Parliament from sending the bill to President Akufo-Addo for approval.

Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo announced that the two cases would not be consolidated, and separate rulings would be delivered.

This decision followed a request by Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame.

Counsel for Dr. Odoi, Dr. Ernest Ackon, argued that the bill, if approved, imposes a direct charge on public funds, violating Article 108.

He also highlighted the absence of a fiscal impact analysis before the bill was sent to the President.

“The bill imposes a direct charge on public funds, violating Article 108, and lacks a fiscal impact analysis,” Dr. Ackon stated.

Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame, representing the second respondent, contended that the Speaker’s discretion is constrained by the constitution, necessitating the Supreme Court’s decision on the injunction application.

Thaddeus Sory, Counsel for the Speaker of Parliament, argued that the claims regarding the need for a fiscal impact analysis were unsupported by the constitution, especially since the bill did not explicitly state it would impose a charge on the consolidated fund.

“The applicant’s claims regarding a fiscal impact analysis are not supported by the constitution,” Sory asserted. He further argued that the substance of the interlocutory injunction was not significantly different from a previously dismissed application by the plaintiffs.

Counsel for the Speaker of Parliament added that the process of transmitting the bill from the Speaker of Parliament to the President for assent is ongoing and thus not within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to deliberate.