President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo
In a recent development, the Office of the President has formally requested Parliament to refrain from sending the controversial anti-gay bill to President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo for his assent.
This decision comes in light of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction that have been filed before the Supreme Court.
Nana Bediatuo Asante, Secretary to the President, explained that the request to withhold the bill was made after the President received information about the pending applications. These applications aim to prevent Parliament from delivering the bill to the President and to restrain him from giving his assent until a final decision on the matter is reached.
In a statement released on Monday, Nana Bediatuo confirmed that the Attorney-General had notified the President about these applications through a letter dated March 18, 2024.
The letter emphasized the importance of awaiting the resolution of the suits before taking any action regarding the bill.
According to the Office of the President, it is understood that both applications have also been appropriately served on Parliament. Therefore, it is deemed inappropriate for Parliament to transmit the bill to the President, and equally improper for the President to receive it until the Supreme Court has concluded its review of the issues raised in the applications.
The statement further highlighted the importance of maintaining the status quo ante during the pendency of an interlocutory injunction application. It stressed that no action should be taken that could undermine the authority of the court or prejudice the injunctive relief sought.
Consequently, the Office of the President has explicitly requested Parliament to cease and desist from transmitting the anti-gay bill to the President until the Supreme Court has resolved the matters presented in the pending applications.
This development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing debate surrounding the controversial anti-gay bill. As stakeholders eagerly await the Supreme Court’s decision on the interlocutory injunction applications, the outcome will have significant implications for the future of the bill and highlight the delicate balance between legislative decisions and judicial oversight.
By Vincent Kubi