The Supreme Court has struck out a review application challenging its judgment on the constitutionality of Parliament’s passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the anti-gay bill.
The application, filed by journalist and lawyer Richard Sky, was withdrawn through his lawyer, Paa Kwasi Abaidoo, when the case was called on Monday, February 26. Following the withdrawal, the nine-member review panel, led by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, struck out the case.
Cost Concerns
Despite the withdrawal, members of the bench expressed displeasure over Sky’s absence in court.
A Chief State Attorney, Sylvia Adisu, urged the court to award costs against the applicant. Justice Prof. Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu questioned whether it was fair for the applicant to summon nine Justices of the apex court only to withdraw the application.
Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu also suggested imposing costs on Sky, arguing that, as a lawyer, he should have appeared before the court.
However, Justices Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi and Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu disagreed, noting that the case was a public interest matter and that awarding costs was unnecessary.
The president of the panel, before striking out the case, strongly expressed displeasure over Sky’s absence.
Background
Parliament passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill on February 28, 2024. The bipartisan private member’s bill, if assented to by the President, will impose a minimum jail term of three years and a maximum of five years on individuals who engage in and promote homosexual activities. It also criminalizes pro-gay advocacy and sanctions individuals and organizations that fund activities associated with LGBTQ+ communities.
Legal Challenge
Two plaintiffs, Richard Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi, filed separate suits at the Supreme Court challenging the bill’s passage. Their argument was that the bill, as a private member’s bill, failed to comply with Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution and Act 921. They contended that the bill would impose a charge on the Consolidated Fund, as convicted persons could be incarcerated at the state’s expense.
On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the suits challenging the bill’s constitutionality had failed to properly invoke its jurisdiction. The court further held that, since the bill had not yet been enacted into law, the suits were premature.
It was this ruling that Richard Sky sought to have reviewed but has now withdrawn.
SourceGraphiconline
