The Office of the President has told Parliament to desist from transmitting the Proper Human Sexual Rights and Families Values Bill, 2021 to the President for his assent.
The Office explained in a letter dated March 18, 2024 and addressed to the Clerk to Parliament, Cyril Kwabena Nsiah, that there were two interlocutory injunction applications filed at the Supreme Court to restrain the Legislature and Clerk to Parliament from transmitting the Bill to the President for his assent and any attempt to proceed with the transmission of the Bill would be prejudicial.
“The Office is aware of two pending applications for an interlocutory injunction, both filed on March 7, 2024 in the Supreme Court in Dr Amanda Odoi v The Speaker of Parliament and The Attorney-General and Richard Sky v The Parliament of Ghana and The Attorney-General respectively, to restrain you and Parliament from transmitting the Bill to the President, and, also, to restrain the President from signifying his assent to the Bill, pending the final determination of the matter.”
According to the letter, the Attorney-General has informed the President of the applications and has “advised the President not to take any step in relation to the Bill until” the matter raised by the suits are determined by the Supreme Court.
The letter, signed by the Secretary to the President, Nana Bediatuo Asante, was necessitated by attempts by Mr Nsiah to submit the Bill to the President for his assent whilst the President was on retreat with his senior officials on March 14, 2024.
The Office also stated that it was aware Parliament had duly been served with the two injunction applications and that it would be improper for the clerk to proceed with the transmission.
“It would be improper for you to transmit the Bill to the President and equally improper for this Office (of the President) to receive the Bill until the Supreme Court determines the matters raised in the suits.
“Indeed, it is settled law that, during the pendency of an interlocutory injunction application, the status quo ought to be preserved, and no action should be taken that would result in prejudicing the injunctive relief sought and undermining the authorities of the court.
“In the circumstances, you are kindly requested to cease and desist from transmitting the Bill to the President until the matters before the Supreme Court are settled,” the letter concluded.
But addressing journalists in Parliament yesterday, former Minority Leader and MP for Tamale South, Haruna Iddrisu, described the decision of the Office of President as grave constitutional threat to Ghana’s democracy.
“I’m unable to sleep and I’m unable to sleep because this is a monumental threat to Ghana’s democracy and a monumental threat to Parliament as an institution.
“This letter reflects President Akufo-Addo’s quest of predominance over other organs of state. That is unacceptable and that must be stopped by all persons who love democracy and who cherish the principles and values of the 1992 Constitution,” Haruna Iddrisu stated.
He said Parliament, by Article 93 of the Constitution is clothed with legislative authority and could not be injuncted from undertaking that mandate as being sought by the two applicants.
An application for injunction, Haruna Iddrisu argued, was not application in itself for the President to delineate his duty as he’s enjoined by the Constitution.
The count from the day the Clerk submitted the Bill to the Office of the President was on and should the President not assent or communicate back to Parliament within seven days why he can’t assent to the Bill as required of him in Article 106(7), “we will hold the president responsible for constitutional breach”.
BY JULIUS YAO PETETSI
