Supreme Court dismisses challenge to anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, citing lack of Presidential assent
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed a case filed by media personality Richard Dela Sky and University of Ghana researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi, who sought to challenge the passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly known as the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill.
The court’s ruling was based on the fact that the bill has not yet become law. Presiding Judge Lovelace Johnson explained that a bill must receive presidential assent before it can be reviewed by the judiciary for its constitutionality.
Richard Dela Sky’s petition argued that the bill violated several provisions of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, including Articles 33(5), 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2), and 21(1)(a)(b)(d), and (e).
Among the eight reliefs he sought was a declaration that the Speaker of Parliament had violated Article 108(a)(ii) by facilitating the passage of a bill that imposes financial obligations on the Consolidated Fund or other public resources. Sky also sought an order to stop the implementation of the bill, calling it unconstitutional and an overreach of legislative power.
Dr. Amanda Odoi’s petition echoed these concerns, raising additional issues regarding the potential impact of the bill on fundamental human rights.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them in full. Justice Johnson emphasized that the court cannot rule on the constitutionality of a proposed law until it has been enacted and received presidential assent.
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill has sparked significant public debate, with proponents arguing it supports traditional family values, while opponents assert it violates human rights and freedoms.
The court’s decision highlights the procedural limitations in challenging legislation before it becomes law.
