Private legal practitioner Martin Kpebu has expressed doubt that the anti-lgbtqi bill will become law.
He says that chances are high that the bill will not become law. “It will only take a miracle for it to become law,” he said.
Kpebu explained on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday, July 20 that “At this rate, chances are high that this bill will not become law. 31st of July we are going on a judicial holiday. Then we proceed on legal vacation in mid-October. So, it means that for this period the Supreme Court will not deal with this matter.
“Lawyers are going on vacation they will deal with only emergency cases. But this gay bill does not qualify as an emergency case.
“The court will resume hearing after mid-October, but there are still quite a number of steps to take before the court comes with a decision, so practically this bill is not likely to become law.”
For his part, South Dayi Lawmaker, Rockson Nelson Dafeamekor, said that the Supreme Court’s decision to defer its 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, technically grants the application against transmitting the bill to the President.
Mr Dafeamekopr explains that if the substantive case travels for two years, it means the bill cannot be sent to the President for that period.
“It is sad that this is happening. This is happening at the highest of our judicial institution, SC, it will become a precedent that other lower courts may follow. It is not a good precedent,” he said on the Key Points on TV3 Saturday, July 20.
He argued that the Supreme Court’s decision to defer the ruling technically grants the application against transmitting the bill to the president.
“What then is the essence of the interlocutory application? The decision of the Supreme Court is a technical grant of the application. If the matter travels for two years, Parliament can’t remit the bill to the President. Parliament is deemed to be injuncted from transmitting the bill and it is a worrisome development. How do you tie Parliament’s hands this way?” He asked.
The Attorney-General Godfred Dame welcomed the decision by the Supreme Court to defer its ruling.
Dame said the apex court’s decision is not unusual because the justices referred to existing rule on injunctions to arrive at their decision.
“What happened is that the court indicated that we have to await the determination of the main action.
The 5-member panel, chaired by Chief Justice, Gertrude Torkornoo made the pronouncement on the application for an interlocutory injunction against the transmission of the anti-gay bill to the presidency by Parliament on Wednesday, July 17.
The Case has been adjourned indefinitely.
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).
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.
