The application that Parliament filed in the anti-LGBTQ+ case will be heard by the Supreme Court (SC) today.
Even though Parliament had gone beyond the 14-day period allowed by Supreme Court regulations, it submitted the application on October 1 requesting the court to grant leave for it to file its defense.
Registrar Justice Ellen Ofei Ayeh of the Supreme Court informed reporters during a press conference in Accra on October 7 that the court is prepared to accept all necessary filings.
Justice Ayeh declared, “The Supreme Court is ready to hear every matter where parties have complied with the court rules directing the processes to be filed before a hearing is held.”
Three weeks ago, the Judicial Service of Ghana clarified in a statement that was copied to the Ghanaian Times that the Supreme Court (SC) could only hear cases that were still pending after the parties involved filed the necessary paperwork in accordance with Rule 48 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996, CI 16.
According to the Judicial Service, the delay in the substantive issue hearing was not the SC’s fault.
This explanation follows today, September 17, a scheduled demonstration by Mr. Samuel George Nartey, the Member of Parliament for Ningo Prampram and one of the sponsors of the Ghanaian Family Values Bill and the Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights Bill.
Mr. Nartey contends that the Supreme Court’s July 17, 2024 decision to postpone ruling on the interlocutory injunction to prevent Parliament from sending the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill to the President for ratification until the substantive case is heard and determined is a “deliberate and malicious” attempt on the part of the Chief Justice to stall the Bill’s passage into law, thereby forcing the protest march in order to demand a timeline for the case’s hearing.
According to the Judicial Service, on May 8, 2024, July 3, 2024, and July 17, 2024, the SC met as a panel of five judges to consider the two applications.
It further stated that the Supreme Court agreed to postpone rulings on whether to grant or deny injunctions in the two applications on July 17, 2024. The Amanda Odoi case ruling, which was followed in the Richard Sky case, provided the rationale for this conclusion.
“The court said: … ‘we are convinced that the matters raised in this application can be better dealt with by obtaining all the facts through an early trial, than by considering the peculiar merits of the purposes of this application at this time. We also hold the view that an early trial of the action will serve the cause of justice, in view of the fact that it will render a clear view of the constitutional issues raised, than a sustained dispute over interlocutory matters.”
According to the statement, the plaintiff must submit a statement of case in any constitutional action before the Supreme Court.
It further specified that, in accordance with Rule 48 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996, CI 16, the defendant was required to respond to the plaintiff’s statement of case in a statement of case no later than fourteen days after receiving it.
Following the filing of the two statements of case, the parties are required by Rule 50 of the Supreme Court Rules 1996, CI 16, to file a joint or separate memorandum of issues outlining the constitutional concerns in dispute and seeking a determination from the court.
Furthermore, it stated that the Richard Sky case was initiated by a writ filed on March 5, 2024, and that as of July 31, 2024, when the Supreme Court was on recess, neither the Attorney General, the second defendant, nor Parliament, the first defendant, had submitted a statement of case in opposition to the plaintiff’s action.
According to the statement, the trial’s memorandum of issues could only be submitted by the three parties after the case statements were finalized.
It emphasizes that the matter cannot be heard by the Supreme Court until then.
Source: newsthemegh.com