A High Court in Accra has given lawyers in the case which sought to restrain Parliament from passing the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the Anti-LGBTQ Bill, four weeks to file their written submissions.
The court has subsequently adjourned the case to July 29, 2024 to fix a date for judgement if all parties comply with the directive.
Paul Boama-Sefa, a farmer, had sued the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General in May last year, seeking a restraining order against Parliament proceeding with the passage of the bill which has attracted major attention across the globe.
His main concern revolves mainly around Parliament’s alleged failure to take into consideration the financial implications the passage of the bill would have on public funds.
He avers that the Speaker of Parliament had failed to perform his lawful duty to ensure compliance with Section 100(1) of the Public Financial Management Act, 2016 (Act 921).
The suit was still pending when Parliament on February 28, 2024, passed the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill which introduced further punishment for gay activities in the country.
The bill, among other things, advocates prison terms for those who take part in LGBTQ sexual acts, as well as those who promote the rights of gay, lesbian or other non-conventional sexual or gender identities in Ghana.
The bill is yet to be transmitted to the President for a possible assent as a result of the two suits filed before the Supreme Court.
There are currently four separate cases pending before courts – two at the Supreme Court and another two at the High Court, all challenging the constitutionality of the passage of the bill.
Suit
Mr. Boama-Sefa, in his suit, avers that subsequent to the presentation of the bill in 2021, the Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs had requested the Attorney General to provide the government’s stand on the bill.
He says the Attorney General in providing government’s position had pointed out that the bill was not accompanied by an impact analysis as required by Section 100(1) of Act 921 because it is a Private Members Bill.
Plaintiff, therefore, avers that the non-compliance with the AG’s position shows an intention on the part of the Speaker of Parliament not to comply with the provisions of Act 921 and by extension, the 1992 Constitution.
It is his argument that allowing the bill to proceed irrespective of the breach would set a bad precedent for the law-making process in Parliament and erode the rule of law.
He is, therefore, seeking an order of perpetual injunction directed at the Speaker of Parliament and all assigns and agents to comply with the provisions of the law before further steps are taken on the bill.
He is also seeking a declaration that the failure of the Speaker of Parliament to perform his obligation and the failure of the Attorney General to insist on same that the bill be accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis has rendered all the processes leading to the bill’s passage, invalid and void.
BY Gibril Abdul Razak