The verdict in the two cases brought by Dr. Amanda Odoi, a researcher, and broadcast journalist Richard Dela Sky against Parliament’s adoption of the divisive anti-gay legislation is scheduled for July 17, 2024, by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Sky is requesting a declaration that the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, which was passed by Parliament, is unconstitutional because it violates the country’s laws, the fundamental human rights that the constitution guarantees, and a number of other provisions of the 1992 constitution.
Regarding particular clauses of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, Dr. Odoi has expressed concerns.
In order to stop the Speaker, the Attorney General, and the Parliament Clerk from forwarding the bill to President Akufo-Addo for his assent, she is also requesting a restraining order.
The court was informed by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo that separate decisions will be made in the two instances rather than a consolidation.
This ruling was made in response to a request made by Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame.
Dr. Ernest Ackon, Amanda Odoi’s attorney, contended that the law violates Article 108 since it places a direct burden on public funds if it is passed.
Additionally, before the law was forwarded to the president, he drew attention to the absence of a fiscal effect analysis.
Godfred Yeboah Dame, the Attorney-General, who was the second respondent, contended that the Speaker’s discretion is bound by the constitution and hence the conclusion made by the apex court regarding the injunction case is justified.
Plaintiff In order to prevent the Speaker from sending the bill to the President, Dr. Amanda Odoi is requesting an injunction.
The applicant’s claims regarding the necessity of a fiscal impact analysis, according to the first defendant in the case, Counsel for the Speaker of Parliament Thaddeus Sory, were not supported by the constitution, particularly since the bill did not specifically state that it would impose a charge on the consolidated fund.
He said that the interlocutory injunction’s content was essentially the same as that of an earlier request made by the plaintiffs that the courts had rejected.
He went on to say that the process of getting the bill from the Speaker of Parliament to the President for his assent is still ongoing and not yet finished, therefore the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue.
He urged the judge to reject the application that was submitted before the bench.
Source: newsthemegh.com