Supreme Court Dismisses Richard Dela Sky’s Petition Against Anti-LGBTQI Bill
A seven-member panel of the Supreme Court, chaired by Justice Lovelace Avril Johnson, has unanimously dismissed a petition filed by broadcast journalist and lawyer Richard Dela Sky, challenging the constitutionality of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.
Sky had sought a declaration that the bill, which aims to criminalize LGBTQI-related activities, was null and void. However, the court ruled against his petition, affirming the legislative process’s constitutionality.
The court clarified that the bill had not yet become law and, therefore, could not be subjected to constitutional review.
Key Ruling
Justice Johnson explained that, under Ghanaian law, a bill does not become an enactment until it receives presidential assent, which marks the final stage of its legislative process.
As such, the court emphasized that legislative procedures cannot be challenged on constitutional grounds before a bill becomes enforceable law.
Context of the Bill
The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill has sparked widespread national debate. If passed, it would criminalize LGBTQI advocacy and impose penalties on individuals promoting, funding, or supporting LGBTQI activities.
Proponents argue that the bill is necessary to safeguard Ghanaian cultural and family values, which they believe are under threat from foreign influences.
Critics, however, including human rights advocates, argue that the bill violates fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, association, and equality.
Additional Legal Challenge
Equality advocate Amanda Odoi had also filed a separate petition, arguing, alongside Sky, that Parliament failed to meet constitutional quorum requirements during the legislative process, as stipulated under Articles 102 and 104 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court dismissed both petitions, reiterating its stance that only enacted laws can be subjected to judicial review for constitutionality.
Implications
The ruling sets a significant precedent regarding judicial intervention in legislative matters, reinforcing the principle that only enforceable laws—not bills in the legislative pipeline—are subject to constitutional scrutiny.
This decision leaves the debate on the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill to the legislative and executive branches of government.
