Anti-LGBTQI Bill: Dafeamekpor criticizes Supreme Court’s decision to delay ruling, citing negative precedent.
South Dayi Lawmaker Rockson Nelson Dafeamekor has expressed strong reservations about the Supreme Court’s decision to postpone its ruling on Dr. Amanda Odoi’s request to restrain Parliament from transmitting the anti-LGBT bill until the main case is heard. He believes this decision sets a dangerous precedent that lower courts may follow.
Speaking on TV3’s Key Points on Saturday, July 20, Dafeamekor lamented, “This is a sad development, especially coming from the highest judicial institution in the land. The Supreme Court’s decision will likely influence lower courts, and that’s troubling.”
He argued that the Supreme Court’s deferral effectively grants the application, preventing Parliament from transmitting the bill to the president.
“What, then, is the significance of the interlocutory application? The Supreme Court’s decision represents a technical approval of the application. This implies that even if the legal process extends over two years, Parliament will be unable to send the bill to the President. It effectively places a restraining order on Parliament from moving forward with the bill, and this is a troubling development. How can we allow Parliament’s actions to be so restricted in this manner?” he questioned.
Attorney-General Godfred Dame has applauded the Supreme Court’s decision to defer its ruling on the anti-LGBTQ+ bill, citing that it’s a common legal approach. According to Dame, the court’s decision to await the determination of the main action is rooted in existing rules on injunctions.
“It’s not unusual at all,” Dame explained to TV3’s Joseph Ackah-Blay after the court proceedings on Wednesday, July 17. “The court has simply referred to an existing rule on injunctions, and I think their approach is fair. The issues at hand can be better addressed in the substantive action, and it’s within the court’s power to make that call.”
The 5-member panel, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, made the pronouncement on the application for an interlocutory injunction against transmitting the anti-gay bill to the presidency on July 17. The case has been adjourned indefinitely, with a similar outcome for the application filed by broadcast journalist Richard Sky against the anti-LGBTQI bill.
Two lawsuits are currently before the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill passed by Parliament. Richard Dela Sky’s lawsuit argues that the “Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill” violates multiple 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 seeks eight reliefs, including a declaration that the Speaker of Parliament contravened Article 108(a)(ii) by allowing the bill’s passage, which imposes a charge on Ghana’s Consolidated Fund or public fund
In a separate lawsuit, Dr. Amanda Odoi is challenging specific provisions within the bill, seeking a restraining order to prevent the Speaker, Attorney-General, and Clerk of Parliament from transmitting the bill to President Akufo-Addo for approval. This injunction aims to halt the bill’s progress until the court resolves the constitutional challenge
Thank you for choosing Lincolnmedia.online as your go-to source for news. We hope that you find our website informative and engaging
