PLAYBACK: Supreme Court hearing injunction application against President on 'LGBTQI+' Bill
The Supreme Court is hearing the two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill.
Advertisement
Broadcast journalist and legal practitioner, Richard Dela Sky and researcher, Dr Amanda Odoi have filed various suits challenging the passage of the Anti-LGBTQ+Bill and its possible assent by the President.
Attached below is a LIVE video from the Supreme Court.
The last time the case came up for hearing in May, the Supreme Court directed the parties involved in the challenge of the constitutionality of the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, to re-file fresh documents.
Background
In a writ invoking the jurisdiction of the apex court to interpret and enforce the Constitution, Mr Sky is seeking an order from the court to restrain the Speaker and Clerk of Parliament from presenting the anti-LGBTQ+ Bill to the President for his assent.
He is further seeking an injunction against any attempt to enforce the Bill, especially the aspect that criminalises same sex relationship. The writ filed at the Supreme Court on March 5, 2024, contends 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, Article 15(1) which protects the dignity of all persons, and Article 18(2) which protects the privacy of people.
Other provisions, he argues, are Article 17(1) which provides for equality before the law, and Article 21(a) and (b) which protect freedom of speech and thought. The plaintiff is, therefore, seeking a declaration from the Supreme Court that the Bill sins against all the above stated provisions, as well as Articles 106 and 108, which dictate the mode by which Parliament can pass a Bill.
Other Trending Stories
Again, Mr Sky is seeking a declaration from the court that at the time the Bill was passed, Parliament lacked the requisite quorum as stipulated by Articles 102 and 104 of the Constitution.
Dr Odoi
Dr Odoi, on the other hand, is also at the Supreme Court with a case 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.