Supreme Court dismisses challenge to anti-LGBTQI bill

In a unanimous decision, a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court presided over by Justice Lovelace Avril Johnson, dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill. The petition, filed by broadcast journalist and lawyer Richard Dela Sky, sought to nullify the bill, which has sparked widespread national debate.

The court, in its ruling, upheld the constitutionality of the legislative process for the proposed anti-LGBTQI bill, which aims to criminalize activities associated with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI) advocacy. The bill, if passed, would impose severe penalties on individuals or organizations promoting, funding, or indirectly supporting LGBTQI-related activities.

Richard Dela Sky, alongside equality advocate Amanda Odoi, argued that the legislative process violated Articles 102 and 104 of the 1992 Constitution, which stipulate quorum requirements for parliamentary proceedings. They contended that the alleged breach rendered the bill’s passage unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions on procedural grounds, emphasizing that a bill does not qualify as an enactment subject to judicial review until it receives presidential assent. Justice Lovelace Johnson stated, “The court cannot review the constitutionality of a legislative process until the bill becomes law.”

The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill has polarized public opinion in Ghana. Proponents of the bill argue that it is essential for preserving Ghanaian cultural and family values, which they claim are under threat from foreign ideologies. On the other hand, human rights organizations have condemned the proposed legislation, labeling it a violation of constitutional rights such as freedom of expression, association, and equality before the law.

The ruling reinforces the autonomy of Ghana’s legislative process, shielding it from judicial interference at the bill stage. The court’s position underscores the principle that legislative actions remain insulated from constitutional scrutiny until they culminate in enforceable laws.

The dismissal of the petitions clears the path for the bill to proceed through Parliament, with its final fate resting on presidential assent.

By: Linda Akite