The Supreme Court will deliver its judgement in the suit against the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, also known as the anti-LGBTQ bill today.
Broadcast journalist and private legal practitioner, Richard Dela Sky, and a Researcher from the University of Cape Coast, Dr Amanda Odoi filed two separate suits challenging the constitutionality of the bill which was passed by Parliament this year.
At the last adjourned date, November 19, Justice Avril Lovelace-Johnson presiding over a 7-member panel of justices adopted the statement of case of all the parties in the Richard Dela Sky case.
In the Dr Amanda Odoi matter, the Supreme Court also adopted all the Memorandum of issues filed including the Statement of case and adjourned the hearing to Wednesday, December 18 to give its final say on both cases.
Background
On February 28, 2024, Parliament passed the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, also known as the anti-LGBTQ bill – a bi-partisan private member’s bill.
The bill was subsequently forwarded to the President for assent or otherwise. This was however not to be after broadcast journalist and private legal practitioner Richard Dela Sky challenged the bill at the Supreme Court on March 5.
Richard Dela Sky contended that the anti-LGBTQ bill violated Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution which stipulates that any bill before Parliament which would have an impact on the consolidated fund should be introduced by or on behalf of the President.
The suit added on to a pending one filed earlier by researcher Dr Amanda Odoi in June 2023.
In response, the President after receiving the bill said he would not assent until the final determination at the Supreme Court.
In July, while hearing the injunction application, the apex court deferred its decision to hear the substantive case.
Upon resumption of the legal year in October, proponents of the bill, led by MP for Ningo Prampram Sam Nartey George took to the streets to protest the delay.
But the judiciary in response, noted in a statement that the prolonged delays were as a result of the failures of the parties’ filing processes required.
Source:
3news.com
Source link
