Advertisement
Attorney-General
Godfred
Dame
says
that
an
argument
that
the
speaker
of
Parliament
will
be
in
contempt
if
he
moves
to
transmit
the
anti-lgbqti
Bill
to
the
President
while
the
court
case
is
still
pending,
is
a
sound
argument.
Lawyer
for
broadcast
Journalist
Richard
Sky
who
has
filed
a
case
against
move
to
transmit
the
anti-lgbtqi
bill
to
the
president
for
assent,
Paa
Kwasi
Abaidoo,
has
told
the
speaker
of
Parliament
Alban
Bagbin
that
he
will
flout
the
law
on
contempt
if
he
attempts
to
transmit
the
bill
to
the
president
while
the
case
is
still
pending
in
court.
His
comments
come
after
the
Supreme
Court
on
Wednesday,
July
17
deferred
the
ruling
on
the
request
to
restrain
Parliament
from
transmitting
the
Anti-LGBT
bill
filed
by
Dr.
Amanda
Odoi,
until
the
substantive
case
is
heard
and
determined.
The
5-member
panel,
chaired
by
Chief
Justice,
Gertrude
Torkornoo
adjourned
the
case
indefinitely,
TV3’s
Joseph
Ackah-Blay
who
was
in
court
reported.
The
same
conclusion
was
given
to
the
application
filed
by
Richard
Sky
against
the
anti-lgbti
bill,
as
well.
Speaking
to
journalists
after
the
court
proceedings,
Abadioo
said
“By
law
when
the
application
is
before
the
court
and
it
has
not
been
determined
yet,
although
it
has
not
been
expressly
been
stated
or
granted
or
not
granted,
once
it
is
pending
you
don’t
do
anything
to
prejudice
the
outcome
of
the
application.
So
we
say
that
invariably
or
indirectly
it
is
still
restraining
any
party
from
from
doing
anything
contrary
to
the
demands
of
the
application.”
Asked
whether,
for
clarity,
they
do
not
expect
parliament
to
transmit
the
bill,
he
said
“No
they
can’t
do
it
so
far
as
this
matter
is
spending
otherwise
it
will
amount
to
contempt
of
court
to
the
best
of
our
understanding
of
the
law.”
Also
speaking
to
journalists
after
the
court
proceedings,
the
Attorney-General
said
“That
is
a
sound
view.
“If
as
at
this
stage,
the
process
has
not
been
transmitted
and
there
must
be
a
reason
for
that,
the
reason
is
that
there
was
an
application
for
interlocutory
injunction
pending
and
the
court
has
still
not
disposed
for
the
application
for
interlocutory
injunction.
“The
court
said
the
determination
of
the
application
for
interlocutory
injunction
should
abide
by
the
determination
of
the
main
case
and
for
that
matter,
it
is
reserving
its
determination
until
the
main
action
is
heard.
It
tells
you
that
the
application
for
the
interlocutory
injunction
is
still
pending,
it
has
not
been
disposed
of.
and
so
that
will
be
proper
cause
to
take.”
Background
There
are
currently
two
lawsuits
before
the
Supreme
Court
challenging
the
passage
of
the
anti-LGBTQ+
bill
passed
by
Parliament.
Richard
Dela
Sky
is
challenging
the
constitutionality
of
Parliament’s
passage
of
the
“Human
Sexual
Rights
and
Family
Values
Bill.”
He
argues
that
the
bill
violates
several
provisions
of
the
1992
Constitution,
including
Article
33(5)
and
Articles
12(1)
and
(2),
15(1),
17(1)
and
(2),
18(2),
and
21(1)(a)(b)(d)
and
(e).
Sky
is
seeking
eight
reliefs,
including
an
order
declaring
that
the
Speaker
of
Parliament
contravened
Article
108(a)(ii)
of
the
Constitution
by
allowing
Parliament
to
pass
the
bill,
which
imposes
a
charge
on
the
Consolidated
Fund
or
other
public
funds
of
Ghana.
Dr.
Amanda
Odoi
has
raised
concerns
about
specific
provisions
within
the
Human
Sexual
Rights
and
Family
Values
Bill.
She
is
seeking
a
restraining
order
to
prevent
the
Speaker,
the
Attorney-General,
and
the
Clerk
of
Parliament
from
sending
the
bill
to
President
Akufo-Addo
for
approval.