Alive Ghana
The Supreme Court has dismissed two suits challenging the constitutionality of Parliament’s passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the anti-gay bill.
In a unanimous decision today, the court ruled that the suits failed to properly invoke its jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Constitution.
The court further held that the bill had not yet been enacted into law and, as such, the suits were premature.
Plaintiffs’ case
The two injunction applications were by Dr Amanda Odoi, a researcher and human rights activist, and Richard Sky, a broadcaster, who filed separate suits challenging the constitutionality of the passage of the anti-gay bill by Parliament.
The two applications for interlocutory injunctions were seeking to restrain Parliament from transmitting the bill to the President for his assent until the final determination of the two substantive suits.
In their respective suits, the two plaintiffs were of the contention that the process by which the Anti-Gay Bill was passed by Parliament violated Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution stipulates that any bill before Parliament which would have an impact on the consolidated fund should be introduced by or on behalf of the President.
It further stipulates that in the event a bill is introduced by any entity other than the President or on behalf of the President, the person presiding in Parliament must give an opinion on whether the bill would have an impact on the consolidated fund before it is laid before Parliament.
It was the contention of the two plaintiffs that the anti-gay bill, which was a private member’s bill, failed to follow the dictates of Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution.
According to the plaintiffs, the bill will put a charge on the consolidated fund because under the bill, persons convicted of homosexuality can be jailed, which imposes costs on the state.
In view of that, they averred that the Speaker of Parliament breached Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution by not giving an opinion on whether the bill, when implemented, could lead to financial consequences on the country through a charge on the consolidated fund.
Anti-Gay Bill
On February 28, this year, Parliament passed the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, which was a bi-partisan private member’s bill.
If assented to by the President, the bill, which enjoyed overwhelming support of members of the House, will impose a three years minimum jail term and five years maximum incarceration on those who engage in and promote homosexual activities in the country.
It has thus criminalised and prohibited pro-gay advocacy, as well as those who fund the activities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, asexual, among other such people.
The passage of the bill has since generated diverse reactions, with its opponents describing it as a drawback of the human rights status of the country, while proponents insist it was necessary to guard against the normalisation of homosexual activities.
