LGBTQ Archives -

Supreme Court of Ghana Dismisses Two LGBTQ Suits

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

Supreme Court of Ghana Dismisses Two LGBTQ Suits Read More »

Supreme Court grants AG extension of time in Anti-gay Bill case

The Supreme Court has granted the Attorney General an extension of time to submit his statement of case regarding the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Anti-LGBTQ bill. The AG requested the additional time to gather necessary documents, including a Financial Impact Analysis from the Speaker of Parliament, which had not yet been provided despite a previous court order. The lawsuits are challenging the constitutionality of the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024, which was passed by Parliament last February. The extension was granted by the sole judge after considering an application for more time in the case involving Richard Dela Sky and Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin. The state, represented by Dr. Sylvia Adusu, requested the extension to allow for the filing of their statement of case. She clarified that the delay was not due to any disrespect towards the court. Dr. Adusu explained that AG’s office was awaiting additional documents, including a Financial Impact Analysis from the Speaker of Parliament. She noted that despite a prior court order for the documents to be submitted, compliance had not been met, and the lack of the documents was significantly affecting the case. This, she noted, had caused the delay in filing their statement of case. The lawyers for Richard Sky, Paa Kwesi Abaidoo, and Raphael Banaangman did not oppose the Attorney General’s application for an extension of time. Abaidoo informed the court that they were prepared to file their memoranda of issues but were hindered by the absence of the impact analysis documents from the Speaker of Parliament. Mr. Banaangman told the court “We do not oppose to the application except to say that we have issues with paragraph six and seven of the affidavits in support of the application for extension of time.” In another development, the Supreme Court granted an extension of time to the Attorney General in the case of Dr. Amanda Odoi versus the Speaker of Parliament and the AG. Richard Sky, a broadcast journalist, is seeking a court order to restrain the Speaker from presenting the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024 to the President for assent. He is also seeking to restrain the President from assenting to the Bill, arguing that such action would directly violate the constitutional rights and liberties of Ghanaians. Sky is also requesting an injunction to prevent any enforcement of provisions in the bill that criminalise same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts. GNA

Supreme Court grants AG extension of time in Anti-gay Bill case Read More »

Anti-LGBTQ bill: Parties must complete their work before Court continues hearing – Judicial Service

Leave a Comment / Local News, News / Superlaw Admin

The Judicial Service of Ghana has addressed concerns regarding delays in two Supreme Court cases related to the Anti-LGBTQ Bill. According to the Service, the involved parties have yet to complete the necessary procedural work before hearings can proceed. In a statement issued on September 13, 2024, the Service explained that in both cases—one filed by Richard Sky and another by Dr Amanda Odoi—key defendants, including Parliament and the Attorney General, have not submitted their Statements of Case, preventing the filing of a Memorandum of Issues, which is required before the Supreme Court can schedule a hearing. For Richard Sky’s case, filed on March 5, 2024, both Parliament and the Attorney General have failed to submit their defenses as of July 31, 2024, when the Court went on recess. Similarly, in Dr Odoi’s case, initiated in June 2023, Parliament has filed its statement, but the Attorney General has yet to do so. The Judicial Service emphasised that until these documents are submitted, the cases cannot progress. It reassured the public that the registries of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, and High Courts remain open, even during legal vacations, and the courts are ready to adjudicate any matter that is prepared for hearing. This clarification comes after the Anti-LGBTQ Bill’s sponsors protested delays in the court’s handling of the cases, expressing concerns over the impact on the bill’s legislative progress. MYJOYONLINE.COM

Anti-LGBTQ bill: Parties must complete their work before Court continues hearing – Judicial Service Read More »

Expedite hearing on anti-LGBTQ case – Sam George to Chief Justice

Leave a Comment / Local News, News / Superlaw Admin

Samuel Nartey George, the lead proponent for the anti-LGBTQ bill, is urging the Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, to expedite the case that has stalled the transmission of the bill to President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for his assent. The Supreme Court deferred its ruling on the injunction applications by Dr. Amanda Odoi and Broadcast Journalist Richard Sky, which seeks to halt the bill’s transmission, choosing instead to deliver the ruling on the same day as the final judgment. In an interview with Citi News, the Member of Parliament for Ningo-Prampram, Samuel Nartey George, said the Chief Justice should accelerate the judicial process to resolve the matter promptly. “Even during vacation, the court sits and hears matters of great importance and national importance that require urgency. The court can sit during the vacation. And so that is what we are demanding, that this matter is a critical matter. “It is a matter that has come before this court. The matter has been pending since March. Other cases that came after this were of equal importance, and she disposed of them expeditiously. “So why is the Chief Justice behaving at a snail’s pace or acting at a snail’s pace in this? It is contrary to the Chief Justice’s own religious belief that she espouses on the altar of the ICGC in Tema. It is also contrary to the traditional authority she comes under in the Central Region. And so the Chief Justice must act expeditiously in pursuit of what she professes.” #Citinewsroom

Expedite hearing on anti-LGBTQ case – Sam George to Chief Justice Read More »

OSP acknowledges Ablakwa’s petition over $34m ambulance spare parts deal

Leave a Comment / Local News, News / Superlaw Admin

The Office of the Special Prosecutor has received a petition from the Member of Parliament for North Tongu, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa regarding the controversial $34 million ambulance spare parts deal approved by former Finance Minister Ken Ofori-Atta. Mr Ablakwa alleged that Ofori-Atta and former Health Minister Kwaku Agyeman-Manu of conspiring with a private company, Service Ghana Auto Group Limited to swindle the government. He claimed that Ofori-Atta approved the deal just five days before leaving office, raising suspicions of impropriety and questioning the company’s ability to deliver, given its recent incorporation. The Special Prosecutor, Kissi Agyebeng, has acknowledged the petition and indicated that he will investigate the matter if it falls within his jurisdiction. The letter further assured Mr. Ablakwa that the office would request further assistance if needed. Graphiconline.

OSP acknowledges Ablakwa’s petition over $34m ambulance spare parts deal Read More »

Law against anal sex constitutional – Supreme Court declares

Leave a Comment / Crime & Punishment, Local News, News / Superlaw Admin

The Supreme Court has declared as constitutional the law which prohibits unnatural carnal knowledge such as anal sex. In a unanimous decision on Wednesday [July 24, 2024], a seven-member panel of the court dismissed a writ challenging the constitutionality of Section 104 (1) (b) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29). The court, presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, did not read the full reasoning of the court, which it said would be deposited at the court’s registry. The writ was filed by Dr Prince Obiri-Korang, a lecturer at the University of Ghana Law School. Section 104 (1) (b) of Act 29 makes it a crime for any person to have unnatural carnal knowledge of a person who is 16 years and above even with his consent, with the crime described as a misdemeanour. Section 104 (2) defines unnatural carnal knowledge as sex in an unnatural way or with an animal. Dr Obiri-Korang, had argued in his writ that Section 104(1)(b) of Act was unconstitutional as it breached the right to privacy stipulated under Article 18 of the 1992 Constitution, right against discrimination under Article 17, and the protection of personal liberties under Article 14. myjoyonline

Law against anal sex constitutional – Supreme Court declares Read More »

Supreme Court defers ruling on injunction applications on anti-LGBTQ Bill

Leave a Comment / Local News, News / Superlaw Admin

The Supreme Court has deferred the ruling on the injunction application by Dr Amanda Odoi and Broadcast Journalist, Richard Sky to the transmission of the anti-LGBTQ bill to the President and rather deliver the ruling on the same day the final judgement will be given. The five-member panel, chaired by Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo stated that the court has thus agreed to make an early trial into the case as that will better serve the purpose of Justice. The ruling on the two injunction application was delivered separately by the Supreme Court. The case has since been adjourned sine die. The two lawsuits filed by Broadcast Journalist, Richard Dela Sky, and Researcher, Dr Amanda Odoi are against Parliament’s passage of the controversial anti-gay bill. Mr Sky is challenging the constitutionality of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, and he is seeking a declaration that the bill passed by Parliament breaches several provisions of the 1992 constitution and violates the country’s laws and the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the constitution. Dr Odoi has raised concerns about specific provisions in the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill. She is also 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 his approval. At the last hearing Counsel for Amanda Odoi, Dr Ernest Ackon, argued that the bill, if approved, imposes a direct charge on public funds, violating Article 108. He also pointed out the lack of a fiscal impact analysis before the bill was sent to the President. The Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, the second respondent, argued that the Speaker’s discretion is not unconstrained by the constitution, hence warranting the apex court’s decision on the injunction application Plaintiff Dr. Amanda Odoi seeks an injunction to stop the Speaker from transmitting the bill to the President. The first Defendant on the case led by Counsel for the Speaker of Parliament Thaddeus Sory on his part, argued that the claims of the applicant regarding the need for a fiscal impact analysis were not supported by the constitution especially when the bill did not expressly say it will impose a charge on the consolidated fund. According to him, the substance of the interlocutory injunction was not significantly different from a previous one filed by the plaintiffs and dismissed by the courts He further argued that the transmission of the bill from the Speaker of Parliament to the President for him to assent is still an ongoing process that hasn’t been completed and, hence wasn’t within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to deliberate on the matter. He called on the court to dismiss the application before the bench. The Supreme Court, chaired by Her Ladyship Gertrude Torkonoo, is currently hearing the Richard Dela Sky case.

Supreme Court defers ruling on injunction applications on anti-LGBTQ Bill Read More »

Anti-Gay Bill injunction: Supreme Court to deliver rulings on Richard Sky, Amanda Odoi’s injunctions today

Leave a Comment / Local News, News / Superlaw Admin

The Supreme Court is expected to deliver rulings on two applications filed by broadcast journalist Richard Dela Sky and researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi, seeking to enjoin Parliament from transmitting the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill to the President for assent. The panel of five, presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, heard arguments from all parties on July 3, 2024, before scheduling today for the panel’s decisions. The rulings of the panel, which also included Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Ernest Gaewu, and Justice Yaw Darko Asare, will be separate for each application. In a televised court proceeding, the first case, titled Dr. Amanda Odoi vs. the Speaker and Attorney General, saw counsel for the applicant, led by Ernest Arko, relying on filed processes. Counsel argued that both the Speaker and the Clerk to Parliament should be restrained by the Apex Court until after the determination of the substantive matter. He contended that irreparable damage and harm would be inflicted on the applicant if the interlocutory injunction is not granted, while the Speaker would not suffer if it is refused. Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame stated, “what the (Supreme) Court ought to look at in granting an application for interlocutory injunction is whether substantial questions of law have been raised by the plaintiff.” Counsel for the Speaker, Thaddeus Sory, opposed the application, arguing that no violation would be inflicted on the applicant if the request is refused. He said the application is a repetition of what had been put before the court earlier by the applicant, which was later struck out. Constitutional Provisions The parties all referred to Article 108(a)(i)(ii)(iii) and made their arguments for and against. Article 108(a) states as follows: Parliament shall not, unless the bill is introduced or the motion is introduced by, or on behalf of, the President: (a) proceed upon a bill, including an amendment to a bill, that, in the opinion of the person presiding, makes provision for any of the following: (i) the imposition of taxation or the alteration of taxation otherwise than by reduction; (ii) the imposition of a charge on the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana or the alteration of any such charge otherwise than by reduction; or (iii) the payment, issue, or withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana of any money not charged on the Consolidated Fund or any increase in the amount of that payment, issue, or withdrawal. Richard Sky Case In a similar but separate application, the lawyer for Richard Dela Sky, Paa Kwesi Abaidoo, pointed to the absence of fiscal impact analysis, which formed the basis for the passage of the bill. Counsel for Parliament, Thaddeus Sory, sought leave to file it as a supplementary affidavit, but the court said it could only be useful in the substantive matter and not the application for interlocutory injunctions. Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame argued that the bill ought to be stayed until the final determination of the substantive suit. Reliefs Sought Among the reliefs sought in Richard Sky’s writ is an order restraining the Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024 to the President of the Republic for his assent. The plaintiff is also asking the court for an order restraining the President of the Republic from assenting to The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024, as such action will directly contravene the constitutional safeguards of the liberties and rights of Ghanaians. He asked for “an injunction barring any attempts to enforce the provisions of The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024, particularly those criminalizing same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts.” Source: Starrfm.com.gh

Anti-Gay Bill injunction: Supreme Court to deliver rulings on Richard Sky, Amanda Odoi’s injunctions today Read More »

Anti-Gay Bill cases: Richard Sky, Amanda Odoi face Supreme Court rulings on July 17

Leave a Comment / Local News, News / Superlaw Admin

The Supreme Court has fixed July 17, 2024, to deliver its rulings on two applications filed by Broadcast Journalist, Richard Dela Sky, and Researcher, Dr Amanda Odoi seeking to injunct Parliament from transmitting the Anti-LGBTQ+Bill to the President for its assent. This was after, the panel of five presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, the Chief Justice heard arguments from all parties. During the televised Court Proceedings, lawyers for Dr Amanda Odoi, led by Ernest Arko while relying on processes filed said, both the Speaker and the Clerk to Parliament should be restrained by the Apex Court until after the determination of the substantive matter. “We have before you this morning (Wednesday, July 3) an application for Interlocutory Injunction restraining the first Respondent (Speaker of Parliament) and the Clerk of Parliament from forwarding the bill passed on Feb 28, 2024, to the president for his assent,” Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted. He contended that irreparable damage and harm would be visited heavily on the applicant if the Interlocutory Injunction is not granted since the Speaker has nothing to suffer if refused. Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, said though he is not stating his position on the matter, “what the (Supreme) Court ought to look at in granting an application for interlocutory injunction is whether substantial questions of law have been raised by the Plaintiff. Counsel for the Speaker, Thaddeus Sory, opposed the Application on grounds that no violation would be occasioned on the Applicant if the request is refused. He said the application is a repetition of what had earlier been put before the Court earlier by the Applicant, which was later struck out. Constitutional Provisions The parties all made references to Article 108(a)(i)(ii)(iii) and made their argument for and against. Per Articles 108(a) states as follows; Parliament shall not, unless the bill is introduced or the motion is introduced by, or on behalf of, the President (a) proceed upon a bill including an amendment to a bill, that, in the opinion of the person presiding, makes provision for any of the following – (I) The imposition of taxation or the alteration of taxation otherwise than by reduction; (II) Or the imposition of a charge on the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana or the alteration of any such charge otherwise than by reduction, or (III) The payment, issue or withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana of any money not charged on the Consolidated Fund or any increase in the amount of that payment, issue, or withdrawal; Richard Sky case In a similar but separate case, a lawyer for Richard Dela Sky, Paa Kwesi Abaidoo pointed to an absence of physical impact analysis which formed the basis for the passage of the Bill. But, though Counsel for Parliament, Thaddeus Sory sought leave to be allowed to file it as a supplementary affidavit, the Court said, it could only be useful in the substantive matter and not the application for interlocutory injunctions. The Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame argued that the Bill ought to be stayed until the final determination of the substantive suit. The panel of five chaired by the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, with Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Ernest Gaewu and Justice Yaw Darko Asare will determine whether to grant the request or not. EIB Network’s Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, reports that though the cases look similar, the Court will deliver two separate rulings on July 17. Reliefs sought Among the reliefs sought in Richard Sky’s writ is an order restraining the Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024 to the President of the Republic for his assent. The Plaintiff is also asking the Court for an order restraining the President of the Republic from assenting to The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024, as such action will directly contravene the Constitutional safeguards of the liberties and rights of Ghanaians. “An injunction barring any attempts to enforce the provisions of The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bil 2024, particularly those criminalizing same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts,” he asked. Source: Starrfm.com.gh

Anti-Gay Bill cases: Richard Sky, Amanda Odoi face Supreme Court rulings on July 17 Read More »

Anti-LGBTQ+Bill case: Supreme Court hears Richard Sky, Dr Amanda Odoi anti-gay lawsuits today

Leave a Comment / Local News, News / Superlaw Admin

The Supreme Court will today sit on the two lawsuits filed by Broadcast Journalist, Richard Dela Sky, and Researcher, Dr Amanda Odoi challenging the passage of the Anti-LGBTQ+Bill and its possible assent. Today’s (Wednesday, July 3) sitting would be the second time the Apex Court would be sitting on the matter with the first hearing taking place on May 8. The two controversial lawsuits have since stopped the Bill passed by Parliament from being transmitted from Parliament to the Presidency for President Nana Addo Dankwah Akufo-Addo to assent to it possibly. Richard Sky, also a private legal practitioner, and Dr Amanda Odoi, a researcher at the University of Cape Coast are challenging the constitutionality of the passage of the anti-LQBTQ+Bill which has been passed by Parliament. But, President Nana Akufo-Addo had since declined to receive the bill from the law-making chamber pointing to the two pending cases at the Supreme Court as the basis. According to EIB Network Legal Affairs Correspondent, Murtala Inusah, the two cases would be televised on television, radio, and other media platforms following the Chief Justice’s directives. What happened on May 8? On May 8, when the case was called for the first time, the Supreme Court ordered the lawyers of Richard Sky, the Plaintiff in one of the two cases challenging the passage of the anti-LQBTG+Bill to file a fresh motion by May 17. The panel of five chaired by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo further directed Mr Sky and his lawyers to file fresh supporting affidavits and statements of case. The order of the Apex Court was after lawyers of the Plaintiff led by Paa Kwesi Abaidoo filed two separate applications which sought leave to amend one of their reliefs and another to file a supplementary affidavit to their application for interlocutory injunction. But, while the Attorney General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, opposed the request for leave to file a supplementary affidavit, lawyers of the Speaker of Parliament led by Thaddeus Sory urged that a fresh motion paper rather be filed to clean the processes which the apex Court agreed with him. The Apex Court then directed the Plaintiff and his lawyers to file fresh processes by May 17, 2024, while the matter was adjourned indefinitely. Subsequently, a hearing notice was issued to the parties with the hearing fixed for Wednesday, July 3, 2024. Dr Amanda Odoi’s case In the other case filed by a Researcher at the University of Cape Coast, Dr Amanda Odoi, the Apex Court has directed the Speaker to re-file his application seeking leave to file supplementary affidavits within 7 days. The Supreme Court while making that directive urged Counsel to be mindful of the choice of words deployed as it was unhappy with the wording of the initial one. Panel The Chief Justice’s led panel also has Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Prof Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Ernest Gaewu, and Justice Yaw Darko Asare. Reliefs sought Among the reliefs sought in Richard Sky’s writ is an order restraining the Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024 to the President of the Republic for his assent. The Plaintiff is also asking the Court for an order restraining the President of the Republic from assenting to The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024, as such action will directly contravene the Constitutional safeguards of the liberties and rights of Ghanaians. “An injunction barring any attempts to enforce the provisions of The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bil 2024, particularly those criminalizing same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts,” he asked. https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaT7ZGR9MF8uFCU9Um37 Source: Starrfm.com.gh

Anti-LGBTQ+Bill case: Supreme Court hears Richard Sky, Dr Amanda Odoi anti-gay lawsuits today Read More »