The Supreme Court has withdrawn a review application that challenged its judgment on the constitutionality of Parliament’s passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly known as the anti-gay bill. This decision came after the applicant, Richard Sky, withdrew the application through his lawyer, Paa Kwasi Abaidoo, when the case was called today (February 26). The nine-member review panel, led by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, subsequently struck out the case as withdrawn.
Cost
However, members of the bench expressed displeasure over Sky’s absence in court. A Chief State Attorney, Sylvia Adisu, prayed the court to award costs against the applicant. Justice Prof. Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu questioned whether it was fair for the applicant to summon nine Justices of the apex court only to withdraw the application.
Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu also suggested that the court should impose costs on Sky, stating that, as a lawyer, he ought to have appeared before the court. However, Justices Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi and Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu disagreed, arguing that the case was a public interest matter and that awarding costs to the state was unnecessary. Before striking out the case as withdrawn, the president of the panel strongly expressed displeasure over the applicant’s absence.
Background
On February 28, 2024, Parliament passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, a bipartisan private member’s bill. If assented to by the President, the bill, which enjoyed overwhelming support from members of the House, will impose a minimum jail term of three years and a maximum of five years on individuals who engage in and promote homosexual activities in the country. The bill criminalises and prohibits pro-gay advocacy and also sanctions individuals and organisations that fund activities associated with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, asexual (LGBTQ+) communities.
Suits
Two plaintiffs, Richard Sky and Dr Amanda Odoi, have filed separate suits at the Supreme Court, challenging the bill’s passage. Their contention is that the bill, as a private member’s bill, failed to comply with the requirements of Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution and Act 921.
The plaintiffs argued that the bill would impose a charge on the Consolidated Fund, as convicted persons could be incarcerated at the state’s expense. They, therefore, averred that the Speaker of Parliament breached Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution by failing to determine whether the bill’s implementation would have financial implications for the state.
Judgment
In a unanimous decision on December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that the two suits challenging the constitutionality of the bill had failed to properly invoke its jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the Constitution. The court further held that, since the bill had not yet been enacted into law, the suits were premature. It is this ruling that Mr Sky sought to have reviewed but has now withdrawn.
By: Justice Agbenorsi
