A Supreme Court panel of nine members, led over by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, has denied a plea to postpone Parliament’s consideration of the anti-gay measure.
The court says it is not persuaded to grant such an injunction at this time since the issues mentioned will be addressed in the substantive litigation.
This is the court’s verdict in a lawsuit brought by researcher Dr Amanda Odoi, who claims that parliament’s work on the proposed bill violates the constitution. Dr Odoi’s legal team also dropped the contempt charge against the Speaker of Parliament.
Dr Odoi is one of two persons who have filed a lawsuit against the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General in relation to the Anti-LGBT Law.
She claims that her checks reveal that the Speaker of Parliament has been served with all appropriate legal documents, including one requesting that the court issue an injunction prohibiting Parliament from considering the bill. Despite this, she claims that the Speaker allowed the Bill to proceed to its Second Reading in Parliament.
“That by his conduct in directing or causing Parliament to proceed to a Second Reading of the Bill, in full knowledge of the pending suit and related interlocutory injunction application, the Respondent has disregarded and disrespected the authority of this Court.
That such neglect jeopardises the result of existing litigation, throws the administration of justice into shame, and weakens public trust in the judicial system.”
On Wednesday, the court heard legal arguments over whether the case should be placed on pause. The Speaker of Parliament was not present, but Thaddeus Sory led his legal team.
Dr Odoi’s lawyers were the first to speak in court. Dr Ernest Ako, the lead attorney, urged that the court put the parliament debate on hold.
“Per the nature of the provision of article 108…assuming this bill goes through and becomes law and money is expended from the consolidated fund, we would not get the money back meanwhile Ghanaians would not get the millions that would have been spent on this law.”
“If the application is granted and Parliament does not proceed and the substantive matter is determined, parliament would just have suffered a little by not proceeding with the bill in the interim,” he stated.
Dr Sylvia Aduse, Chief State Attorney, told the court that Dr Odoi’s legal team had failed to demonstrate how they would suffer or which of their rights should be preserved in the meantime.
“He should have proved this balance of convenience well but we have not seen any evidence of that. The speaker is doing his duty and cannot be injuncted.” She said.
Lawyer for the Speaker Thaddeus Sory urged the court to dismiss the request.
“We pray that this application doesn’t satisfy any of the tests as set by this court and should be dismissed.”.
The panel presided over by the Chief Justice Indicated a case meriting an injunction has not been made.
“We have considered the merits of this case and are of the considered view that a prima facie case has not been made to convince us to injunct the work of parliament.
“Neither have we been convinced to injunct an uncompleted work of parliament. The issues raised by this application for injunction are matters to be determined by the substantive matter. This application for an injunction is dismissed.” The Chief Justice stated.
Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Gabriel Pwamang, Mariama Owusu, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Yonny Kulendi, Barbara Ackah-Yensu, Samuel Asiedu, and George Koomson are also on the panel.”
Meanwhile, Dr Odoi’s legal team has dropped the contempt complaint brought against the Speaker of Parliament.
