The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a review application contesting its decision on the constitutionality of Parliament’s enactment of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, also known as the anti-gay bill.
This followed the applicant, Richard Sky, withdrawing his application through his lawyer, Paa Kwasi Abaidoo, when the case was called this morning (February 26).
The nine-member review panel, led by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, subsequently dismissed the case as withdrawn.
Cost
However, members of the bench were dissatisfied with Sky’s absence from court.
Sylvia Adisu, the Chief State Attorney, asked the court to award costs against the applicant.
Justice Prof. Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu questioned if it was fair for the applicant to summon nine justices of the Supreme Court only to withdraw the application.
Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu also proposed that the court impose fees on Sky, arguing that as a lawyer, he should have appeared in court.
However, Justices Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi and Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu disagreed, claiming that the lawsuit was in the public interest and that awarding costs to the state was unwarranted.
Before declaring the case dropped, the panel’s head voiced severe unhappiness with the applicant’s absence.
Background
On February 28, 2024, Parliament approved the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, a nonpartisan private member’s bill.
If signed by the President, the law, which received overwhelming support from House members, will inflict a minimum three-year jail sentence and a maximum of five years on anyone who indulge in and promote homosexual acts in the country.
The measure criminalises and prohibits pro-homosexual campaigning, as well as punishes individuals and groups that sponsor activities related to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, and sexual (LGBTQ+) communities.
Suits
Two claimants, Richard Sky and Dr Amanda Odoi, have filed separate Supreme Court lawsuits challenging the bill’s passage.
They argue that the bill, as a private member’s bill, fails to meet the standards of Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution and Act 921.
The plaintiffs contended that the bill would place a burden on the Consolidated Fund since convicted individuals might be imprisoned at the state’s expense. They claimed that the Speaker of Parliament violated Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution by failing to consider whether the bill’s implementation would have financial consequences for the state.
Judgment
On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court declared unanimously that the two lawsuits contesting the bill’s validity had not properly invoked its competence to interpret and apply the Constitution.
The court also ruled that because the bill had not yet been passed into law, the claims were premature.
Mr Sky tried to have this verdict reviewed, but has now withdrawn.