The Supreme Court of Ghana has unanimously dismissed two suits challenging the constitutionality of the contentious Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, widely referred to as the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill. The apex court ruled that the cases, filed by broadcast journalist and lawyer Richard Dela Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi, a lecturer, were premature and could not be entertained at this stage.
The seven-member panel, led by Justice Avril Lovelace Johnson, explained that the bill had not yet received presidential assent to become law. Until then, the court held, there was no enforceable Act of Parliament to review for constitutionality. The Court emphasized that its supervisory jurisdiction could only be invoked over existing legislation.
“The plaintiff’s action is therefore dismissed,” Justice Johnson stated, summarizing the panel’s decision.
The two plaintiffs—Richard Dela Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi—had separately petitioned the court, arguing that the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill violated fundamental constitutional rights, including freedoms of expression, association, and privacy. Their cases named the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General as respondents.
Sky’s suit sought to prevent the President from assenting to the bill and challenged the parliamentary process through which it was passed, arguing that Parliament lacked the necessary quorum. On the other hand, Dr. Odoi’s case similarly sought to halt the legislative process, asserting that the bill was inconsistent with the principles of Ghana’s Constitution.
However, the Supreme Court firmly ruled against both suits. In Dr. Amanda Odoi’s case, the panel noted that she had improperly invoked the court’s jurisdiction, as the legislative process was still ongoing.
The Court’s unanimous decision underscores a strict interpretation of judicial intervention in Ghana’s legislative processes. The justices clarified that until the bill completes all legislative formalities—including presidential assent—it does not constitute a law that can be challenged in court. Judicial intervention, they explained, would only be appropriate once the legislative process had concluded.
The Court further stressed that entertaining the suits at this stage would amount to judicial overreach into parliamentary processes. The plaintiffs were thus advised to wait until the bill becomes law before seeking constitutional review.
The seven-member Supreme Court panel comprised Justice Avril Lovelace Johnson (presiding), Justice Henrietta Mensah Bonsu, Justice Barbara Acka-Yensu, Justice Samuel K. Asiedu, Justice Ernest Gaewu, Justice Yaw Asare Darko, and Justice Richard Adjei Frimpong.
Richard Dela Sky was represented by Paa Kwesi Abaidoo, while Dr. Amanda Odoi was represented by Dr. Ernest Arku. The Attorney General’s office was represented by Diana Abena Dapaah, and the Speaker of Parliament was represented by Mr. Thaddeus Sory.
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, passed by Parliament in February 2024, seeks to criminalize LGBTQ+ activities in Ghana, including advocacy and promotion. The bill has sparked significant debate both domestically and internationally, with human rights groups criticizing it for infringing on fundamental freedoms guaranteed under Ghana’s Constitution.
While supporters argue that the bill reflects Ghanaian cultural and moral values, opponents contend that it violates international human rights standards and the rights enshrined in Ghana’s Constitution. The bill has drawn scrutiny from civil society, legal practitioners, and international organizations, many of whom have called on Ghana’s leadership to reconsider its implications.
Leave a comment