Judging from the legal commentaries on the decision of the Supreme Court to defer its ruling on the request to restrain Parliament from transmitting the anti-LGBTQI bill filed by Dr. Amanda Odoi, until the substantive case is heard and determined, a former General Secretary of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Ohene Ntow has said that the apex court has not gone against any law with the position that they took.
Nana Ohene Ntow, also an advisor to independent presidential aspirant Alan Kyerematen, however asked the president to be sensitive to the feelings of Ghanaians.
He said that although it is the right of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to sign the anti-lgbtqi bill or not, he should be concerned about their feelings.
“I think the president should be sensitive to the sentiment of the majority of the people but it is still his right to either sign or not to sign,” Ohene Ntow said on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday, July 20.
“In all fairness clearly the Supreme Court has not gone against any law by the position they have taken.
“I can only appeal to the values and norms we have overwhelmingly against lgbtqi.”
For his part, private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu said that the Supreme Court’s decision to defer its ruling until the substantive case is heard and determined, practically injuncts the speaker of Parliament from transmitting the bill to the president.
He explained that when a matter is before courts, persons are not permitted to act in ways that render the case ‘foolish’.
“Practically there is an injunction against the speaker and the president because the matter is in court. When a matter is before the court don’t do anything to render the case foolish case. That is the law so let us hold our hands,” he said on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday, July 20.
Kpebu further called on stakeholders to exercise patience and allow the Supreme Court to come out with a decision on the anti-lgbtqi bill matter that will be acceptable to all.
He says this bill is not the only bill that has gone through a slow process. He referred to the e-levy that also faced a similar situation but eventually got approved.
“The anti-gay is not the only bill that will go through the process, we had the e-levy
“Ghana is not dying so let’s wait and allow the Supreme court to come out with a decision that will be accepted by all,” he said.
Kpebu however doubted that the anti-lgbtqi bill would become law. He said that chances are high that the bill will not become law. It will only take a miracle for it to become law, he said.
He explained that “At this rate, chances are high that this bill will not become law. 31st of July we are going on a judicial holiday. then we proceed on legal vacation in mid-October. So it means that for this period the Supreme Court will not deal with this matter.
“Lawyers are going on vacation they will deal with only emergency cases. But this gay bill does not qualify as an emergency case.
“The court will resume hearing after mid-October but there are still quite a number of steps to take before the court comes with a decision, so practically this bill is not likely to become law.”
For his part, South Dayi Lawmaker Rockson Nelson Dafeamekor said that the Supreme Court’s decision to defer its ruling on the request to restrain Parliament from transmitting the anti-LGBT bill filed by Dr. Amanda Odoi, until the substantive case is heard and determined, technically grants the application against transmitting the bill to the president.
Mr Dafeamekpor explains that if the substance case travels for two years, it means the bill cannot be sent to the president for that period.
“It is sad that this is happening. This is happening at the highest of our judicial institution, SC. it will become a precedent that other lower courts may follow. It is not a good precedent,” he said on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday, July 20.
He argued that the Supreme Court’s decision to defer the ruling technically grants the application against transmitting the bill to the president.
“What then is the essence of the interlocutory application? The decision of the Supreme Court is a technical grant of the of granting the application. If the matter travels for two years parliament can’t remit the bill to the president. Parliament is deemed to be injuncted from transmitting the bill and it is a worrisome development. How do you tie parliament’s hands this way?” He said.
The Attorney-General Godfred Dame welcomed the decision by the Supreme Court to defer its ruling.
Dame said the apex court’s decision is not unusual because the justices referred to existing rule on injunctions to arrive at their decision.
“What happens is that the court indicated that we have to await the determination of the main action
“The court says the issues can be better handled in the substantive action and it is possible for a court to do that. there is nothing unusual at all the court actually referred to an existing rule on injunctions and so I think the court is fair in coming by that approach,” he told TV3’s Joseph Ackah-Blay after court proceedings on Wednesday, July 17.
The 5-member panel, chaired by Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo the pronouncement on the application for an interlocutory injunction against the transmission of the anti-gay bill to the presidency by Parliament on Wednesday, July 17.
The Case has been adjourned indefinitely.
The same conclusion was given to the application filed by broadcast journalist Richard Sky against the anti-lgbtqi bill, as well.
Background
There are currently two lawsuits before the Supreme Court challenging the passage of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill passed by Parliament.
Richard Dela Sky is challenging the constitutionality of Parliament’s passage of the “Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.”
He argues that the bill violates several provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including Article 33(5) and Articles 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2), and 21(1)(a)(b)(d) and (e).
Sky is seeking eight reliefs, including an order declaring that the Speaker of Parliament contravened Article 108(a)(ii) of the Constitution by allowing Parliament to pass the bill, which imposes a charge on the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.
Dr. Amanda Odoi has raised concerns about specific provisions within the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.
She is seeking 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.
3news.com
