Ghana’s Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously dismissed two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of an extreme Anti-LGBTQ Bill passed by the country’s parliament in February.
The cases, filed by broadcast journalist/lawyer Richard Dela Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi, a lecturer at the University of Cape Coast, were against the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General, essentially challenging the constitutionality of the bill passed.
The plaintiffs had argued that the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill violated constitutional rights.
However, the seven-member panel, led by Justice Avril Lovelace Johnson, ruled that the suits were premature.
As reported by the Ghana News Agency, the Court stated that the bill had not yet received presidential assent, and until it became law, there was no Act of Parliament for the Court to review.
Therefore, it could not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
“The plaintiff’s action is therefore dismissed,” the apex court said.
In the case of Dr. Amanda Odoi, the same seven-member panel of the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff could not properly invoke the court’s jurisdiction.
The Court noted that the bill was still undergoing parliamentary processes to become law, and as such, the case failed.
The Court further clarified that the two suits were premature, as the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill had not yet received presidential assent.
The panel also stated that the reasons for their ruling would be made available by the close of Friday.
The panel included Justices Henrietta Mensah Bonsu, Barbara Acka-Yensu, Samuel K. Asiedu, Ernest Gaewu, Yaw Asare Darko, and 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 was represented by Diana Abena Dapaah, and the Speaker of Parliament, represented by Mr. Thaddeus Sory.
Sky, in his suit, sought various orders, including restraining the President from assenting to the bill, arguing that the bill violated constitutional rights.
He also contested the passage of the bill in Parliament, claiming that Parliament lacked the necessary quorum to pass it.
The plaintiffs are challenging the process and passage of the bill, which was approved by Parliament in February 2024.