close
close

Anti-gay law is not the only law that is going through a slow process – Kpebu

Anti-gay law is not the only law that is going through a slow process – Kpebu

Anti-gay law is not the only law that is going through a slow process – Kpebu

Private lawyer Martin Kpebu has called on stakeholders to be patient and give the High Court time to make a decision on the issue of the anti-LGBTQI bill that is acceptable to all.

He says that this bill is not the only bill that has gone through a slow process. He referred to the e-tax which also faced a similar situation but was eventually approved.

“The anti-gay bill is not the only bill that will go through the process, we also had the e-tax

“Ghana is not going to die, so let us wait and let the Supreme Court make a decision that everyone will accept,” he said on TV3’s Key Points on Saturday, July 20.

Kpebu, however, doubted that the anti-LGBTQI bill would become law. He said there was a high probability that the bill would not become law. It would just take a miracle for it to become law, he said.

He explained that “at this rate, there is a good chance that this bill will not become law. On July 31, we go on a judicial vacation. Then we go on a judicial vacation in mid-October. So that means the Supreme Court will not hear this issue during that period.

“Lawyers go on vacation, they only deal with emergencies. But this gay bill does not qualify as an emergency.

“The court will resume hearings after mid-October, but there are still many steps to be taken before the court makes a ruling, so it is unlikely that this bill will become law in practice.”

South Dayi legislator Rockson Nelson Dafeamekor, on his part, said the High Court’s decision to defer judgment on the request to block Parliament from forwarding the anti-LGBT bill moved by Dr Amanda Odoi until the substantive case is heard and determined technically grants the request not to forward the bill to the President.

Mr Dafeamekopr explains that if the substantive case takes two years, this means that the bill cannot be sent to the President during that period.

“It is sad that this is happening. This is happening at the highest level of our judicial institution, SC. ​​It will set a precedent that other lower courts may follow. It is not a good precedent,” he said on TV3’s Key Points on Saturday, July 20.

He argued that the Supreme Court’s decision to delay the ruling technically grants the request not to send the bill to the president.

“What is the essence of the interim application then? The Supreme Court’s decision is a technical grant of the application. If the case takes two years, Parliament cannot return the bill to the President. Parliament is supposed to be ordered to forward the bill and that is a worrying development. How do you tie the hands of Parliament in this way?” he said.

Attorney General Godfred Dame welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the verdict.

According to Dame, the Supreme Court’s decision is not unusual, as the justices referred to existing regulations on interim measures in their decision.

“What is happening is that the court has indicated that we must await the decision in the main case

“The court is saying that the issues are better dealt with on the merits and that it is possible for a court to do that. There is nothing at all unusual about the court in that it has actually referred to an existing rule on orders and so I think the court is being fair in that approach,” he told TV3’s Joseph Ackah-Blay after the trial on Wednesday, July 17.

The five-member panel, chaired by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, ruled on Wednesday, July 17, on the request for an interim injunction against the transfer of the anti-gay bill to the presidency by parliament.

The case has been adjourned indefinitely.

Broadcast journalist Richard Sky’s petition against the anti-LGBTQ bill came to the same conclusion.

There are currently two lawsuits pending before the Supreme Court challenging the passage of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill passed by Parliament.

Richard Dela Sky challenges the constitutionality of Congress’s passage of the “Human Sexual Rights and Family Values ​​Bill.”

He argues that the Bill is contrary to several provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including Article 33(5) and Articles 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2) and 21(1)(a)(b)(d) and (e).

Sky seeks eight forms of damages, including an order declaring that the Speaker of Parliament violated Article 108(a)(ii) of the Constitution by allowing Parliament to pass the Bill. This Bill imposes a burden on the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana.

Dr Amanda Odoi has raised concerns about specific provisions in the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values ​​Bill.

She is asking for an interdict to prevent the Speaker, Attorney General and Clerk of Parliament from forwarding the bill to President Akufo-Addo for assent.