The Supreme Court has indefinitely adjourned proceedings regarding the anti-LGBTQI bill, citing the presence of intemperate language in documents submitted by the Speaker of Parliament’s legal team.
The court has directed the team to submit new documents, dismissing a preliminary objection raised by Thaddeus Sory, the lawyer representing the Speaker.
During the televised court session, lawyers representing broadcaster Richard Sky, who initiated the case, sought to amend one of the reliefs in the motion for injunction. However, Thaddeus Sory objected, arguing that their earlier objections to the relief’s formulation had been clearly stated in previously filed documents. After deliberation, the Apex Court, chaired by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkoornoo, ruled that the preliminary objection was unnecessary.
The Chief Justice emphasized that each party has the right to present their case as they see fit and reprimanded the Speaker’s legal team, stating, “You have wasted our time and energy for no reason.”
Broadcaster Richard Sky and Researcher Amanda Odoi filed separate suits against the bill’s endorsement by President Nana Akufo-Addo. Mr. Sky argues that Parliament’s passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill is unconstitutional and violates provisions of the 1992 Constitution.
He contends that the Speaker of Parliament contravened Article 108(a)(ii) of the Constitution by admitting and allowing Parliament to proceed upon and pass the bill into law.
President Nana Akufo-Addo withheld his assent to the bill pending a determination by the Supreme Court. Attorney General Godfred Dame wrote to the court to permit live coverage of the hearing, which was granted.
The cases have sparked significant public interest, with the Attorney General recommending full media access to the relevant courts to undertake coverage of all proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s adjournment has indefinitely delayed the proceedings, awaiting the submission of new documents by the Speaker’s legal team.