The Supreme Court has released its full judgment on the suit challenging the Anti-Gay Bill.
A seven-member panel, led by Justice Lovelace Avril Johnson, on December 18, unanimously dismissed a petition filed by broadcast journalist and lawyer Richard Dela Sky, who had challenged the constitutionality of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.
Sky sought a declaration that the bill, which has sparked intense national debate, was null and void. However, the court rejected his petition and upheld the constitutionality of the legislative process for the proposed anti-LGBTQI legislation.
The controversial bill seeks to criminalize activities related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) advocacy. If passed, it would impose penalties on individuals who promote, fund, or indirectly support LGBTQI-related activities.
Supporters argue the bill is necessary to protect Ghanaian cultural and family values, which they claim are under threat from foreign ideologies. Critics, including human rights groups, condemn the bill as a violation of fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression, association, and equality under the law.
The legal challenge also included a separate petition from equality advocate Amanda Odoi. Both Odoi and Sky argued that Parliament had failed to meet the constitutional quorum requirements outlined in Articles 102 and 104 during the legislative process, rendering the bill’s passage unconstitutional.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, ruling that the bill had not yet become law. Justice Lovelace Johnson explained that until a bill receives presidential assent, it does not constitute an enactment subject to judicial review for constitutionality.
The decision reinforces the court’s position that legislative processes cannot be challenged on constitutional grounds until they result in enforceable law.
CONCLUSION:
“The plaintiff has been unable to satisfy the first requirement of any party seeking to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court: jurisdiction under Article 2 and Article 130 (1). The invocation of the interpretative jurisdiction is based upon an “enactment” or any act done under the authority of an enactment. In the instant case, there is not, as yet, an “enactment” properly so-called, since the legislative process which would transform a Bill into an Act with the force of law has not yet terminated. The action, if at all based on the supposed interpretative jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is as yet premature as there is nothing on which to hang the exercise of the judicial review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
“The Constitution itself has prescribed the mode by which an “enactment”, properly so-called, can come into being after Parliament has exercised its powers to make legislation. By the principle of Separation of Powers, those processes must be exhausted to produce a tangible product that can be assented to by the President, the head of the Executive, to give it legal effect, the judicial power cannot intrude at this time. Until there is presidential assent, there is no Act of Parliament over which the Supreme Court can exercise its original jurisdiction to strike down, if found to be inconsistent with the Constitution, 1992.
“The Plaintiff’s action is dismissed.”
Click here to read the full judgement by the Supreme Court
—-
Explore the world of impactful news with CitiNewsroom on WhatsApp!
Click on the link to join the Citi Newsroom channel for curated, meaningful stories tailored just for YOU: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaCYzPRAYlUPudDDe53x
No spam, just the stories that truly matter! #StayInformed #CitiNewsroom #CNRDigital
