A request that the Supreme Court stop Parliament from considering the anti-gay bill was denied by a nine-member panel led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.
The court claims that because the issues raised will be addressed in the substantive case, it is not persuaded to make such an order at this time.
This is the court’s ruling in a case brought by researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi who claims that the constitution was violated during the legislative process for the proposed law. The legal representation for Dr. Odoi also retracted the charge of contempt brought against the Speaker of Parliament.
Dr. Odoi is one of two citizens who have filed lawsuits against the Attorney General and Speaker of Parliament over the Anti-LGBT bill.
According to her research, the Speaker of Parliament has received notice of all pertinent court documents, including one asking the judge to impose an injunction prohibiting parliament from considering the law. She claims that the Speaker oversaw the Bill’s passage to the Second Reading in Parliament despite this.
“That by his conduct in directing or causing Parliament to proceed to a Second Reading of the Bill, in full knowledge of the pending suit and related interlocutory injunction application, the Respondent has disregarded and disrespected the authority of this Court.
That such disregard interferes with the outcome of the pending litigation, brings the administration of justice into disrepute and undermines public Ck side de in the judicial system”
On Wednesday, the court heard legal arguments regarding whether the case should be postponed. Although the Speaker of the House was not physically present, Thaddeus Sory was in charge of his legal team.
The first people to address the court were attorneys for Dr. Odoi. Dr. Ernest Ako, the lead attorney, insisted that it was crucial for the court to halt the consideration in parliament.
“Per the nature of the provision of article 108…assuming this bill goes through and becomes law and money is expended from the consolidated fund, we would not get the money back meanwhile Ghanaians would not get the millions that would have been spent on this law.”
“If the application is granted and Parliament does not proceed and the substantive matter is determined, parliament would just have suffered a little by not proceeding with the bill in the interim,” he stated.
Dr. Sylvia Aduse, chief state attorney, informed the court that Dr. Odoi’s legal team had failed to demonstrate how they would suffer or which of their rights should be preserved in the interim.
“He should have proved this balance of convenience well but we have not seen any evidence of that. The speaker is doing his duty and cannot be injected.” She said.
Thaddeus Sory, an attorney for the Speaker, urged the court to deny the request.
“We pray that this application doesn’t satisfy any of the tests as set by this court and should be dismissed.”
The bench that the Chief Justice sits on indicated that there was insufficient evidence to support an injunction.
“We have considered the merits of this case and are of the considered view that a prima facie case has not been made to convince us to injunct the work of parliament.
“Neither have we been convinced to injunct an uncompleted work of parliament. The issues raised by this application for injunction are matters to be determined by the substantive matter. This application for an injunction is dismissed,” The Chief Justice stated.
Other panelists include George Koomson, Yonny Kulendi, Barbara Ackah-Yensu, Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Gabriel Pwamang, Mariama Owusu, and Samuel Asiedu.
In the interim, Dr. Odoi’s legal counsel has withdrawn the complaint of contempt brought against the Speaker of Parliament.
