The Supreme Court has set December 18, 2024, as the date for delivering its judgment on two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill—popularly referred to as the anti-LGBTQ Bill—passed by Parliament earlier this year.
The suits were filed by broadcast journalist and lawyer Richard Dela Sky and researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi, who argue that the Bill breaches constitutional provisions.
The Legal Battle
Both plaintiffs presented their cases during court hearings on Tuesday.
Representing Richard Dela Sky, Paa Kwesi Abaidoo sought leave to amend portions of their statement of case, emphasizing that the Bill’s introduction failed to comply with legal requirements, including the absence of a mandatory Financial Impact Assessment report.
The Financial Impact Assessment, mandated by the Public Financial Management Act (Act 921) and its regulations, is required for any Private Members’ Bill with potential implications on the consolidated fund.
The plaintiffs contend that this procedural lapse renders the Bill unconstitutional.
The Attorney-General, represented by Senior State Attorney Richard Gyembibi, stated that their arguments remain as outlined in their statement of case filed earlier.
For Dr. Amanda Odoi’s case, her counsel and opposing parties agreed to rely on previously filed documents and the memorandum of issues.
Both cases were heard by a seven-member panel of justices, chaired by Justice Avril Lovelace-Johnson, who directed responses from the Attorney-General and Parliament’s counsel to be filed by November 27, 2024.
Background
Parliament passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill on February 28, 2024, following bipartisan support.
The Bill criminalizes LGBTQ+ activities and prohibits their promotion, support, and funding. It was sent to the President for assent but was halted after legal challenges were filed.
Richard Dela Sky filed the first suit on March 5, 2024, arguing that the Bill violates Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution, which restricts Parliament from considering bills with financial implications unless introduced on behalf of the President.
This was followed by a similar challenge from Dr. Amanda Odoi in June 2023, who raised human rights concerns and procedural breaches.
Protests and Court Delays
While the judiciary has been criticized for delays, particularly by the Bill’s proponents like MP Sam Nartey George, the Supreme Court attributed the postponements to procedural lapses by the parties involved.
In July 2024, the apex court deferred an injunction application, opting to focus on the substantive case.
The protracted legal battle has since drawn national and international attention, underscoring tensions between constitutional adherence and cultural norms.
As the judgment date approaches, both plaintiffs and proponents of the Bill await the Supreme Court’s decision, which is expected to have far-reaching implications for Ghana’s legal, social, and political landscapes.
Lawyer Paa Kwesi Abaidoo, speaking to the media, highlighted the significance of the court’s eventual ruling.
He stressed the necessity of adhering to constitutional processes and ensuring that legislation respects Ghana’s governance framework.
The December 18 verdict will determine the fate of one of the most contentious legislative developments in Ghana’s recent history.
