General News of Monday, 29 April 2024
Source: www.ghanaweb.live
2024-04-29High Court rejects request to compel Speaker and President on anti-LGBT+ bill
The court's decision not to grant the application was influenced by the ongoing legal challenges
A High Court in Accra has dismissed an application seeking to force Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin and President Akufo-Addo to act on the Anti-LGBT+ Bill within seven days.
Presided over by Justice Ellen Lordina Serwaa Mireku, the court ruled today that while she had the authority to grant the mandamus application, it was inappropriate to compel
Read full articlethe respondents due to two pending Supreme Court cases challenging the bill's constitutionality.
The application, filed by Member of Parliament for South-Dayi Constituency, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor on March 22, 2024, sought to compel the Speaker to send the bill to the President.
However, the court, after hearing arguments from Dafeamekpor's lawyer, Nii Kpakpo Samoa Addo, and Chief State Attorney Sylvia Adesu, ruled against granting the request, citing the premature nature of the action.
Dafeamekpor's application at the High Court aimed to force the Speaker to submit the Anti-LGBT+ Bill to the President within seven days and require the President to either sign or indicate his inability to assent to it within the same period.
The basis for the application was the claim that the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill had been properly passed by Parliament in accordance with the 1992 constitution.
However, the Chief State Attorney argued that the court should not interfere in the matter between Parliament and the Presidency, especially since the bill had not yet been assented to.
The court's decision not to grant the application was influenced by the ongoing legal challenges at the Supreme Court, suggesting that any intervention at this stage would be premature and potentially prejudicial to the pending cases.
The ruling highlights the complex legal landscape surrounding the Anti-LGBT+ Bill and the ongoing debates over its constitutionality and implementation. It underscores the importance of legal processes and the need for thorough examination of legal arguments before making significant decisions on contentious issues.
