The Supreme Court of Ghana on December 18, 2024 dismissed two suits challenging the constitutionality of the process used by Parliament in passing the Human Sexual Rights and Family Bill – popularly called the “anti-gay” bill.
In a unanimous decision, a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court held that the two suits failed to properly invoke the jurisdiction of the court to interpret and enforce the Constitution.
It was the view of the court that the bill was still in the process of being enacted into law and, therefore, it was premature for its constitutionality or otherwise to be determined.
“We come to the unanimous decision that the plaintiff’s writ does not properly invoke the exclusive jurisdiction of this court.”
“We are of the view that the subject of the litigation, being a bill still undergoing the process of becoming law in accordance with the provisions set out by the constitution, it would be premature for this court to exercise its interpretative and enforcement jurisdiction to intervene.
Consequently, the action fails and it is accordingly dismissed,” the court held.
The court said the full reasoning for its decision would be ready by Friday, December 20, 2024.
The seven-member panel was presided over by Justice Avril Lovelace-Johnson, with Justices Professor Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Barbara Ackah Yensu, Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, Ernest Yao Gaewu, Yaw Darko Asare and Richard Adjei-Frimpong as members.
Anti-Gay Bill
On February 28, this year, Parliament passed the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, which was a bi-partisan private member’s bill.
If assented to by the President, the bill, which enjoyed overwhelming support from members of the House, will impose three years’ minimum jail term and five years’ maximum incarceration on those who engage in and promote homosexual activities in the country.
It has, thus, criminalized and prohibited pro-gay advocacy, as well as those who fund the activities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, and asexual, among other such people.
The passage of the bill has since generated diverse reactions, with its opponents describing it as a drawback of the human rights status of the country, while its proponents insist it was necessary to guard against the normalisation of homosexual activities.
Suits
Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution 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.
It further stipulates that in the event a bill is introduced by any entity other than the President or on behalf of the President, the person presiding in Parliament must give an opinion on whether the bill would have an impact on the Consolidated Fund before it is laid before Parliament.
Again, the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921) stipulates that before considering any bill, Parliament ought to ascertain the impact it will have on the nation’s purse by conducting a fiscal impact assessment on the bill.
It is the contention of the two plaintiffs who have filed different suits at the Supreme Court, Richard Sky and Dr Amanda Odoi, that the Anti-Gay Bill was a private member’s bill which failed to follow the dictates of Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution and Act 921.
The plaintiffs said the bill would put a charge on the Consolidated Fund because under the bill, persons convicted of homosexuality could be jailed, which could impose costs on the state.
In view of that, they averred that the Speaker of Parliament breached Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution by not giving an opinion on whether the bill, when implemented, could lead to financial consequences on the country through a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
Culled from graphic.com.gh
