Supreme Court decision on LGBTQ+ good
On Wednesday, the country’s Supreme Court (SC), in a unanimous decision, dismissed two suits challenging the constitutionality of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.
The apex court’s decision has become global news and attracting various views because of the subject matter of the bill – “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/ questioning, asexual and many other terms (LGBTQ+ Bill).
It will be recalled that on February 28, 2024, the country’s Parliament passed the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, into law.
However, before the Speaker of Parliament would transmit the bill to the President, Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, to assent to it to make it a binding law, a broadcast journalist and private legal practitioner, Mr Richard Sky, filed a motion at the SC to stop him from undertaking that constitutional duty.
Mr Sky was seeking an order from the court to restrain the Speaker and the Clerk of Parliament from presenting the anti-LGBTQ+ bill to the President for his assent.
He was also seeking an injunction against any attempt to enforce the Bill, especially the aspect that criminalises same sex relationship.
His contention was that the anti-LGBTQ+ bill contravenes many provisions in the Constitution such as Article 12(1), which enjoins all arms of government to respect and uphold the fundamental human rights of all persons.
The case of the second plaintiff, Dr Amanda Odoi, a researcher, was that the Speaker of Parliament and Parliament in general had violated the Constitution.
It is her case that the Speaker of Parliament breached Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution by not giving an opinion on whether the Bill, when implemented, could lead to financial consequences on the country through a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
Since democracy provides room for contest of ideas regarding issues concerning the society, it can be concluded that Mr Sky and Dr Odoi have done what is within the law, except that the apex court has given reason why their decisions cannot be entertained.
The decision of the court implies that President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo now can assent to the bill without any hindrance.
The Ghanaian Times can recall that many were individuals and groups, as well as even countries such as the United States that have expressed concerns about the passage of the bill into law except that they didn’t go to court.
Their fear is that it could be used to abuse the human rights of those it is targeted at or discriminate against them in some ways.
This fear is legitimate and so before the President assents to it, the bill must be looked at again for clauses that can directly or indirectly give a tacit push for society to abuse the rights of LGBTQ+ practitioners.
While some oppose the bill, the larger society and religious bodies love it.
The Ghanaian society dissents it because it flouts their cultural and religious values and even natural law and any expression of involvement in the practice cannot be tolerated even in the absence of a law.
Therefore, if the practitioners would confine themselves in private, it is clear they would not incur the displeasure of the Ghanaian society and for that matter not be found to be breaching any law.
With that said, however, The Ghanaian Times supports the decision of the Supreme Court.
