The Supreme Court of Ghana has brought to a close a legal challenge against the controversial Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the anti-gay bill. The Court dismissed a review application filed by Richard Dela Sky, challenging its earlier decision upholding the constitutionality of Parliament’s passage of the bill. This dismissal stems from the withdrawal of the application by Sky’s legal representative, Paa Kwasi Abaidoo, during a court session on February 26, 2025. The nine-member review panel, presided over by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, officially struck out the case following the withdrawal, marking the end of this particular legal avenue for contesting the bill. While accepting the withdrawal, the court expressed its disapproval of Sky’s absence from the proceedings, highlighting the seriousness of the matter and the resources allocated to the case.
The court’s decision to dismiss the review application punctuates a series of legal maneuvers surrounding the anti-gay bill. Chief State Attorney Sylvia Adisu advocated for the imposition of costs on the applicant due to the withdrawal, pointing to the unnecessary expenditure of public resources. This sentiment was echoed by Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, who underscored the inconvenience of assembling a nine-Justice panel only for the case to be withdrawn. Justice Samuel Adibu-Asiedu further emphasized the expectation for Sky, as a lawyer himself, to be present for such a significant proceeding. These concerns reflect the court’s commitment to efficient and respectful use of judicial processes.
Despite the arguments for imposing costs, a differing perspective emerged from Justices Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi and Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu. They argued against the imposition of costs, emphasizing the public interest nature of the case and the importance of allowing citizens to challenge legislative processes. This contrasting viewpoint highlights the delicate balance between upholding the integrity of the legal system and ensuring access to justice for matters of public concern. Ultimately, the panel decided to strike out the case without awarding costs, while the presiding judge reiterated his criticism of Sky’s absence, emphasizing the responsibility of litigants, particularly legal professionals, to respect the court’s time and processes.
The dismissal of the review application follows the Supreme Court’s earlier unanimous decision on December 18, 2024, which dismissed Sky’s initial petition challenging the bill’s constitutionality. In that instance, Sky argued that Parliament had failed to meet the quorum requirements stipulated in Articles 102 and 104 of the Constitution during the bill’s passage. The court, however, ruled that the bill, not having received presidential assent at the time, was not yet an enacted law and therefore could not be subject to constitutional review. Justice Lovelace Johnson, leading the seven-member panel in the initial hearing, clarified that a bill becomes subject to constitutional challenge only after it receives presidential assent and becomes law. This underscores the principle of judicial review focusing on enacted legislation rather than bills under consideration.
At the heart of this legal battle lies the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, a piece of legislation aiming to criminalize the promotion, funding, and advocacy of LGBTQI+ rights in Ghana. If enacted, the bill would impose penalties on individuals and organizations engaging in activities deemed supportive of LGBTQI+ initiatives. The bill has ignited a fierce national debate, polarizing public opinion. Proponents argue that it reinforces traditional cultural and moral values, while opponents contend it infringes upon fundamental human rights, potentially leading to widespread discrimination and persecution of LGBTQI+ individuals.
The bill’s passage by Parliament on February 28, 2024, as a bipartisan private member’s bill, further underscores its contentious nature. It has become a focal point of both legal and political discourse, reflecting deep-seated societal divisions regarding LGBTQI+ rights. The Supreme Court’s decisions, while clarifying the legal process concerning the bill’s challenge, have not resolved the underlying societal tensions. The bill’s future, particularly regarding presidential assent, remains uncertain, while the national debate continues to unfold. The Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the procedural aspects of challenging the bill’s constitutionality leave the substantive human rights concerns raised by critics to be addressed through other avenues, possibly legislative amendments or continued public discourse.
