It has been confirmed that the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice has advised President Nana Akufo-Addo not to assent to the recently passed Human Sexual and Family Values Bill, 2024 until a determination of some constitutional matters at the apex court.
Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame who is the principal legal adviser to the government in a letter dated 18th March, 2024, brought to the attention of the President, two actions filed in the Supreme Court by citizens of Ghana, Richard Sky and Dr Amanda Odoi in exercise of their rights under article 2(1) of the Constitution.
He noted that the substance of the suits has raised a challenge to the constitutionality of the passage of the Human Sexual and Family Values Bill, 2024 (the Bill) by the Parliament of Ghana.
Accordingly, the actions sought to restrain the President from assenting to the Bill as there was an interlocutory injunction filed by both plaintiffs to prevent Parliament from forwarding the bill to the President for his assent.
THE CUSTODIAN has gathered that it was based on this advice that the Office of the President in a letter dated 18th March, 2024 officially requested Parliament to refrain from transmitting the Bill, commonly referred to as the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, to President Akufo-Addo.
For instance, in Suit No. JI/9/ 2024 – Richard Sky vrs 1. The Parliament of Ghana 2. The Attorney-General, the plaintiff is seeking the following reliefs:
i. A declaration that upon the true and proper interpretation of Article 33(5) of the Constitution of 1992, in light of Articles 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2), and 21(1) (a) (b) (d) and (e) of the Constitution, the passage of “The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024” by Parliament on 28th February 2024 contravened the Constitution and is to that extent null, void, and of no effect.
ii. A declaration that the Speaker of Parliament contravened Article 1O8(a)(ii) of the Constitution, in light of Article 296(a)(b) and (c), by admitting and allowing Parliament to proceed upon and pass “The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024” into law as the same imposes a charge upon the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.
iii. A declaration that Parliament exceeded its authority under Articles 106(2) and 108(a)(ii) in passing “The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024,” as the same imposes a charge upon the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.
iv. A declaration that, upon the true and proper interpretation of Articles 102 and 104(1) of the Constitution, Parliament lacked the requisite quorum to pass “The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024.”
v. An order restraining the Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting “The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024” to the President of the Republic for his assent.
Vi. An order restraining the President of the Republic from assenting to “The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024,” as such action will directly contravene the Constitutional safeguard s of liberties and rights of Ghanaians.
vii. An injunction barring any attempts to enforce the provisions of “The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2024,” particularly those criminalising same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts.
viii. Such further orders or directions as to this Honourable Court may seem meet.
Interlocutory injunction
The Attorney-General pointed out that the plaintiffs in their suits have, following the institution of the actions, filed applications for an order of interlocutory injunction pending the determination of the writs in the Supreme Court questioning the consistency of the passage of the Bill with the Constitution of the Republic.
The plaintiff Dr Amanda Odoi in Suit No. J1 /13/2023 is seeking an order of interlocutory injunction restraining the Speaker of Parliament, the Clerk of Parliament and their respective agents, servants and assigns from forwarding the Bill to the President for his assent pending the final determination of the suit.
Again, the plaintiff in Suit No. J1/ 9/2024 is seeking the following two interlocutory reliefs:
“(a) an order of interlocutory injunction to restrain the Speaker and the Clerk to Parliament of Ghana from presenting to the President for his assent The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill 2024 passed by the Parliament of Ghana on 24th February, 2024, pending the final determination of the action;
(b) An order directed at the President from giving his assent to the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2024 passed by the Parliament of Ghana on 24th February, 2024, pending the final determination of the action.”
Service
According to Mr. Godfred Dame, the writ in Suit No. J1/9/2024 was served on the Attorney-General on Thursday 7th March, 2024 whilst the motion for interlocutory injunction was served on Friday 8th March, 2024.
In the case of Suit No. J1/13/2023, the writ was served on the Attorney General about a year ago whilst the application for interlocutory injunction was served on the Attorney-General on 8th March, 2023.
Consequently, the Attorney-General advised the President not to assent to the controversial bill until the apex court makes a determination on the issues raised.
“Respectfully, in light of the fundamental questions of constitutional significance raised by the two suits and the serious matters of public importance involved, I am of the considered opinion that it will be appropriate to accord unto the Supreme Court the opportunity to determine the propriety of assenting to the Bill pending the determination of the actions.
“In the circumstances, I am of the view that assenting to the Bill whilst the applications for interlocutory injunction filed in the two suits are pending, will render the said applications otiose and undermine the authority of the Supreme Court to determine the issues raised in them.
In the spirit of upholding the rule of law, as you are obliged to do, I will respectfully advise that, a decision to assent to the Bill be made after the determination of the applications for interlocutory injunction copies of which are enclosed herein,” the Attorney-General advised.
