Anti-LGBTQI law: In all fairness, the Supreme Court did not violate any law by delaying its ruling – Ohene Ntow

Judging from legal commentaries on the Supreme Court’s decision to defer its ruling on the application to restrain Parliament from forwarding the anti-LGBTQI bill moved by Dr Amanda Odoi until the substantive case is heard and determined, a former Secretary-General of the New Patriotic Party (NPP), Nana Ohene Ntow, has said that the Supreme Court did not violate any law in the position it took.

However, Nana Ohene Ntow, also an advisor to independent presidential candidate Alan Kyerematen, asked the President to take into account the feelings of Ghanaians.

He said that while it is the right of President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to sign the anti-LGBTqi bill or not, he must be concerned about their feelings.

“I think the president should take into account the feelings of the majority of the population, but it is still his right to sign or not to sign,” Ohene Ntow said on Key Points on TV3 on Saturday, July 20.

“In all fairness, it is clear that the Supreme Court did not violate any law in taking the position it did.

“I can only appeal to the values ​​and norms that we overwhelmingly have against LGBTQI.”

According to Martin Kpebu, a lawyer at the private court, the High Court’s decision to defer judgment until the substantive case has been heard and decided effectively means that the Speaker of Parliament cannot submit the bill to the President.

He explained that when a case comes before the court, it is not permissible for people to behave in a way that makes the case “foolish.”

“In practice, there is an order against the speaker and the president because the case is in court. When a case is in court, do not do anything to make the case a foolish case. That is the law, so let us hold our hands,” he said on TV3’s Key Points on Saturday, July 20.

Kpebu further called on stakeholders to be patient and give the Supreme 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 will be accepted by everyone,” he said.

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 Dafeamekpor explains that if the substantive case takes two years, it 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 case has been adjourned indefinitely.

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