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.
The apex court said it would rather deliver the ruling on the same day the final judgement is delivered.
The five-member panel, chaired by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, stated that the court has agreed to make an early trial into the case as that will better serve the purpose of justice.
The two filed an interlocutory injunction application filed by Richard Dela Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi, seeking to bar Parliament from transmitting the anti-gay bill to the presidency for assent.
The ruling on the two injunction applications 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 anti-gay bill.
Mr. Sky, a journalist and a private legal practitioner, 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 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 his approval.
She believes 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 in the case, led by Counsel for the Speaker of Parliament Thaddeus Sory, argued on his part 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 would 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.
By: Rainbowradioonline.com/Ghana
