The
Supreme
Court
has
deferred
the
ruling
on
the
injunction
application
by
Dr
Amanda
Odoi
and
Broadcast
Journalist,
Richard
Sky
to
the
transmission
of
the
anti-LGBTQ
bill
to
the
President
and
rather
deliver
the
ruling
on
the
same
day
the
final
judgement
will
be
given.
The
five-member
panel,
chaired
by
Chief
Justice,
Gertrude
Torkornoo
stated
that
the
court
has
thus
agreed
to
make
an
early
trial
into
the
case
as
that
will
better
serve
the
purpose
of
Justice.
The
ruling
on
the
two
injunction
application
was
delivered
separately
by
the
Supreme
Court.
The
case
has
since
been
adjourned
sine
die.
The
two
lawsuits
filed
by
Broadcast
Journalist,
Richard
Dela
Sky,
and
Researcher,
Dr
Amanda
Odoi
are
against
Parliament’s
passage
of
the
controversial
anti-gay
bill.
Mr
Sky
is
challenging
the
constitutionality
of
the
Human
Sexual
Rights
and
Family
Values
Bill,
and
he
is
seeking
a
declaration
that
the
bill
passed
by
Parliament
breaches
several
provisions
of
the
1992
constitution
and
violates
the
country’s
laws
and
the
fundamental
human
rights
guaranteed
by
the
constitution.
Dr
Odoi
has
raised
concerns
about
specific
provisions
in
the
Human
Sexual
Rights
and
Family
Values
Bill.
She
is
also
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
his
approval.
At
the
last
hearing
Counsel
for
Amanda
Odoi,
Dr
Ernest
Ackon,
argued
that
the
bill,
if
approved,
imposes
a
direct
charge
on
public
funds,
violating
Article
108.
He
also
pointed
out
the
lack
of
a
fiscal
impact
analysis
before
the
bill
was
sent
to
the
President.
The
Attorney-General,
Godfred
Yeboah
Dame,
the
second
respondent,
argued
that
the
Speaker’s
discretion
is
not
unconstrained
by
the
constitution,
hence
warranting
the
apex
court’s
decision
on
the
injunction
application
Plaintiff
Dr.
Amanda
Odoi
seeks
an
injunction
to
stop
the
Speaker
from
transmitting
the
bill
to
the
President.
The
first
Defendant
on
the
case
led
by
Counsel
for
the
Speaker
of
Parliament
Thaddeus
Sory
on
his
part,
argued
that
the
claims
of
the
applicant
regarding
the
need
for
a
fiscal
impact
analysis
were
not
supported
by
the
constitution
especially
when
the
bill
did
not
expressly
say
it
will
impose
a
charge
on
the
consolidated
fund.
According
to
him,
the
substance
of
the
interlocutory
injunction
was
not
significantly
different
from
a
previous
one
filed
by
the
plaintiffs
and
dismissed
by
the
courts
He
further
argued
that
the
transmission
of
the
bill
from
the
Speaker
of
Parliament
to
the
President
for
him
to
assent
is
still
an
ongoing
process
that
hasn’t
been
completed
and,
hence
wasn’t
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Supreme
Court
to
deliberate
on
the
matter.
He
called
on
the
court
to
dismiss
the
application
before
the
bench.
The
Supreme
Court,
chaired
by
Her
Ladyship
Gertrude
Torkonoo,
is
currently
hearing
the
Richard
Dela
Sky
case.