The Supreme Court has struck out a review application challenging its judgment on the constitutionality of Parliament’s passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly known as the anti-gay bill.
This decision follows the withdrawal of the application by the applicant, Richard Sky, through his lawyer, Paa Kwasi Abaidoo, during a court hearing on Monday, February 26.
A nine-member review panel, presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, subsequently struck out the case as withdrawn.
Court’s Displeasure and Debate on Costs
Despite the withdrawal, members of the bench expressed dissatisfaction with Sky’s absence in court.
Chief State Attorney Sylvia Adisu urged the court to impose costs on the applicant, while Justice Prof. Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu questioned whether it was appropriate for Sky to summon nine Supreme Court Justices only to withdraw the case.
Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu also argued for the imposition of costs, stating that Sky, as a lawyer, should have been present in court.
However, Justices Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi and Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu opposed the idea, contending that the matter was of public interest and that awarding costs to the state was unnecessary.
Before striking out the case, the panel’s president strongly expressed displeasure over the applicant’s absence.
Background of the Case
On February 28, 2024, Parliament passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, a bipartisan private member’s bill.
If signed into law by the President, the bill—which enjoyed overwhelming support in Parliament—would impose a minimum jail term of three years and a maximum of five years on individuals who engage in or promote homosexual activities. It also criminalizes pro-gay advocacy and sanctions individuals and organizations that fund activities linked to LGBTQ+ communities.
Two individuals, Richard Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi, have filed separate lawsuits at the Supreme Court, challenging the bill’s passage. They argue that, as a private member’s bill, it failed to meet the constitutional requirements of Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution and Act 921.
The plaintiffs claim that the bill would impose financial obligations on the state by incarcerating convicted persons at public expense. They further assert that the Speaker of Parliament breached Article 108 by failing to assess whether the bill would have financial implications for the state.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the bill failed to properly invoke the court’s jurisdiction for constitutional interpretation and enforcement.
The court further held that, since the bill had not yet been enacted into law, the suits were premature.
It was this ruling that Richard Sky sought to have reviewed but has now withdrawn.
