Source: newsthemegh.com
The Supreme Court has rejected an injunction application aimed at halting the progress of a bill criminalising LGBTQ+ individuals in parliament.
A nine-member panel of justices, in a unanimous decision on Wednesday, 19 July 2023, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, ruled that the applicant, Dr Amanda Odoi, failed to present sufficient evidence to justify her prayer.
Justice Torkornoo, while delivering the court’s decision, emphasised that it was not persuaded to impose an injunction on an unfinished legislative process in parliament.
Consequently, Dr. Amanda Odoi’s lawyers withdrew an application for contempt against Speaker Alban Bagbin.
The action was taken against Mr. Bagbin by Dr. Odoi, a well-known researcher, who accused him of contempt for enabling the legislature to move on with the contentious anti-LGBTQ+ measure despite outstanding legal challenges. The lawsuit demanded punishment for Mr. Bagbin on grounds that he disregarded court procedures.
Dr. Odoi stated that the Speaker’s conduct shows a blatant disregard for both the Republic of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution and the legal system.
The Speaker repeatedly violated these essential tenets of the nation’s legal system, and the court filings made this point clear.
The filings further stated that Mr. Bagbin should be punished for contempt in the public interest and to protect the dignity of the court because of his deliberate and persistent disdain for the legal process.
They said that Mr. Bagbin had disregarded the authority of the court by ordering or forcing parliament to move forward with the bill’s Second Reading despite being aware of the ongoing case and associated interlocutory injunction application.
Dr. Odoi’s lawsuit was one of two brought by citizens against the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General in relation to the anti-LGBTQ+ bill.
Stakeholders have expressed varying opinions on the legislation’s merits and ramifications, which have resulted in a heated debate and controversy.
This most recent development intensifies the current discussion surrounding the anti-LGBTQ+ measure as its supporters and opponents continue to debate its possible repercussions and societal influence.