Ghanaian lawyer and author, Mr. Tachie Antiedu, has described as premature the cases pending before the Supreme Court over the passage of the anti-gay bill.
The lawyer averred that one can only invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over a law when it has received presidential assent.
He argued that the processes involved in ensuring that the anti-gay bill is made law have not ended, hence those who have gone to the Supreme Court rushed.
He went on to say that, given the reasons given by the president for refusing to assent to the bill, i.e., the pending cases before the Supreme Court, the Constitution has made it clear under Articles 2 and 130 that the Supreme Court has the authority to determine whether the parliament went beyond its powers in passing a law should any aggrieved person invoke their original jurisdiction.
That is the settled law of the judicial powers of the Supreme Court. Parliament also has a constitutional duty to pass a law. It did so in the case of the anti-gay bill. However, the law has no finality yet. Until the president assents, the bill cannot function. It would have to become law before you could challenge it. It would be premature to challenge it when it has not been enacted.
The Office of the President has written to Parliament to refrain from transmitting the Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values, commonly referred to as the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, to President Akufo-Addo for his assent.
In a letter addressed to Parliament on Monday, March 18, and signed by the Secretary to the President, Nana Asante Bediatuo, the presidency said that in light of two pending applications for an order of interlocutory injunction currently before the Supreme Court, it would not be proper for the House to transmit the bill to the President.
The letter stated that it would be improper for Parliament to proceed with transmitting the bill to President Akufo-Addo for any action until the matters before the court are addressed.
However, lawyer Antiedu described the letter as laughable.
He noted that the cases referenced in the letter have been rushed to the apex court since the law has no finality.
He said the president could even write to Parliament to resolve the issues raised by those who have filed cases before the court, a situation that will render the cases mute.
“So if the President writes to Parliament to resolve these issues, what would become of the cases before the court?”
That is why the cases before the court are premature because there is no final decision on the bill. When Parliament approves the budget, it is a final decision. But in the case of a bill, it is not the final decision.
He said “If care was not taken, this could harm the governance of the country since anyone would just rush to the court seeking an interlocutory injunction over matters that have not even been finalized, ” he said in an interview on Frontline on Rainbow Radio 87.5Fm.
He admitted that it was fine for the president to refuse to assent to the bill and use the pending cases as an excuse.
However, he must act within the law, which requires him to, within a stipulated period, assign reasons why he would not assent to a bill passed by parliament.
“Why the rush? What harm will be caused should the bill be sent to the president? It is even laughable to stop the clerk from sending the bill to the president.”
According to him, the president ought to follow the law as enshrined in the constitution on how bills must be treated.
But to write to the clerk asking him to refrain from transmitting the bill is something I totally disagree with.
He stressed that the Supreme Court is required by law to interpret enacted laws, not bills.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
