Speaker of Parliament delaying anti-gay bill suit — Plaintiff

Lawyers for Richard Sky, the plaintiff in one of the suits challenging the constitutionality of the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, popularly known as the anti-gay bill, has accused the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Sumana Bagbin, of delaying the case.

Lead counsel for the plaintiff, Papa Kwesi Abaidoo, made the observation at the Supreme Court yesterday after the court granted the Speaker seven additional days to file his statement of defence.

The Speaker, who is a second defendant in the suit, was expected to file his statement of case before the apex court went on vacation in July, 2024, but that was not done, with his lawyers moving application for an extension of time to file the process.

Mr Abaidoo submitted that the application by the Speaker for extension of time showed that the defendants were the ones delaying the case, and not the court or plaintiff, as being portrayed among the public.

A Chief State Attorney, Sylvia Adusu, also said the Attorney-General (A-G), who is the first defendant, was also yet to file his statement of case due to the delay by the Speaker in filing the financial impact assessment which the Speaker said was conducted before the bill was passed.

Application

Moving the application for extension of time, counsel for the Speaker of Parliament, Raphael Banaangman, said his client’s delay in filing the statement of case was not deliberate, but happened due to an error by the lawyers.

“Our prayer is that we counsel in the matter are at fault and we pray that it’s not visited on the applicant,” counsel argued.

The court, presided over by a single judge, Justice Yaw Darko Asare, granted the application for extension of time, and ordered the Speaker of Parliament to file his statement of case within seven days.

Anti-Gay Bill

On February 28, this year, Parliament passed the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, which was a bi-partisan private member’s bill.

If assented to by the President, the bill, which enjoyed overwhelming support of members of the House, will impose three years’ minimum jail term and five years’ maximum incarceration on those who engage in and promote homosexual activities in the country.

It has thus criminalised and prohibited pro-gay advocacy, as well as those who fund the activities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex.

The plaintiff went to the Supreme Court shortly after the bill was passed, with a case that it violated Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution

Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution stipulates that any bill before Parliament which would have an impact on the consolidated fund should be introduced by or on behalf of the President.

It further stipulates that in the event a bill is introduced by any entity other than the President or on behalf of the President, the person presiding in Parliament must give an opinion on whether the bill would have an impact on the consolidated fund before it is laid before Parliament.

It is the contention of the plaintiff the anti-gay bill which was a private member’s bill failed to follow the dictates of Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution.

Writer’s email: emma.hawkson@graphic.com.gh