The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed a case filed by media personality Richard Dela Sky and University of Ghana researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi, which sought to challenge the passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, popularly known as the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill.
The apex court’s decision was based on the grounds that the bill had not yet been enacted into law. Presiding Judge Lovelace Johnson emphasized that a bill must receive presidential assent before it can be subject to judicial review of its constitutionality.
Richard Dela Sky’s petition argued that the bill violated several provisions of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, including Articles 33(5), 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2), and 21(1)(a)(b)(d) and (e). Among the eight reliefs sought by Sky was a declaration that the Speaker of Parliament had breached Article 108(a)(ii) by facilitating the passage of a bill that imposes financial obligations on the Consolidated Fund or other public resources.
Sky further sought an order to halt the implementation of the bill, describing it as unconstitutional and an overreach of legislative authority.
Dr. Amanda Odoi’s petition supported these arguments, raising additional concerns about the bill’s potential impact on fundamental human rights.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court found no merit in the claims presented and dismissed both petitions in their entirety.
Justice Johnson’s judgment clarified that the court cannot review the constitutionality of a proposed law until it has been enacted and assented to by the President.
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill has been a topic of significant public debate, with advocates arguing it upholds traditional family values, while critics contend it infringes on human rights and freedoms.
The court’s decision underscores the procedural limitations in challenging legislative actions before they become law.
