The Supreme Court will on July 17 deliver a ruling on an interlocutory injunction against the Speaker of Parliament and the Attorney General.
Dr Amanda Odoi is seeking an order preventing the respondents from transmitting the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill to the President for his assent.
Dr Odoi, a researcher, is asking the Supreme Court to restrain the Clerk to Parliament, its agents, and its assigns from forwarding the Bill on Human Rights and Family Values for presidential assent, pending the determination of the suit.
Making his submissions before the apex court, Dr Odoi’s lawyer, Dr Ernest Arkoh held that the private members’ bill had a financial implication on the public purse.
Dr Arkoh argued that the fiscal impact analysis should have been done.
According to him, when the bill was passed without a fiscal impact assessment, adding,”they only attached the Public Financial Act.”
“Any bill introduced shall be subjected to fiscal impact analysis. Despite the advice, the bill was passed. This is in violation of Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution,” he said.
Plaintiff held that the application was not frivolous as it is a case of public interest and affects all Ghanaians.
According to Dr Arkoh, respondents would not suffer any inconvenience, loss or hardship when the application was granted.
“If the application was refused, we will have to endure a violation of the 1992 Constitution and irreparable harm would be caused to Ghanaians.”
Mr. Thaddeus Sory, who represented the Speaker of Parliament, contended that the Bill would not impose a charge of the Consolidated Fund and disagreed with plaintiff ‘s counsel that no fiscal impact was conducted before the bill was passed.
Mr Sory held that the injunction before the court was not different from an earlier one dismissed by the Supreme Court.
He noted that the forwarding of the Bill to the President was an ongoing process and same had not been completed.
Mr Sory, who opposed that application, noted that the Bill when transmitted to the President could be returned to Parliament for a debate.
According to him, injuncting Parliament was not the way to go and that the plaintiff had failed to show how they would suffer irreparable damage.
Mr Godfred Yeboah Dame, Minister and Attorney General, the second respondent, held that the Speaker’s discretion was not constrained by the Constitution.
Mr Dame argued that when the Bill was transmitted to the President, he could send same to the Council of State to seek their opinions.
In a related development, the court has also adjourned another application filed by Richard Dela Sky, a broadcast journalist.
The five-member panel presided over by Chief Justice Gertrude will deliver its ruling on Mr Sky’s application on July 17, 2024.
The Broadcast journalist is challenging the constitutionality of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.
Mr Sky is praying the court to declare the bill null and void because it breached several provisions of the 1992 constitution.
Again, he said the Bill also violated Ghana’s laws and the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the constitution.
