The Supreme Court of Ghana has delivered a unanimous ruling, dismissing a legal challenge against the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill. The petition, brought forth by media personality Richard Dela Sky and University of Ghana researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi, sought to preemptively invalidate the bill on constitutional grounds before it received presidential assent and became law. The court, presided over by Justice Lovelace Johnson, unequivocally rejected the petitioners’ arguments, emphasizing that judicial review of a bill is only permissible after it has been enacted into law through presidential approval. This decision underscores a fundamental principle of Ghanaian constitutional law: pre-enactment judicial scrutiny of bills is not permitted, and legal challenges can only be mounted against laws duly passed by Parliament and assented to by the President.
The core of Richard Dela Sky’s petition rested on the assertion that the bill violated several key provisions of the 1992 Constitution, including those safeguarding fundamental human rights such as equality before the law, freedom of expression, and protection from discrimination. Specifically, he cited Articles 33(5), 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2), and 21(1)(a)(b)(d) and (e) as being infringed upon by the proposed legislation. He argued that the bill’s provisions, if enacted, would unduly restrict the rights and freedoms of individuals and contravene the constitutional guarantees enshrined in these articles. He further contended that the Speaker of Parliament had acted unconstitutionally by facilitating the passage of a bill that could potentially impose financial burdens on the Consolidated Fund or other public resources, thereby violating Article 108(a)(ii) of the Constitution.
Among the eight reliefs sought by Dela Sky was a declaration that the bill was unconstitutional and an injunction preventing its implementation. He argued that the bill exceeded Parliament’s legislative powers and represented an overreach of their authority. He requested the court to intervene and prevent the potential harm that he believed would arise from the bill’s enactment, highlighting the importance of safeguarding constitutional rights and upholding the rule of law. This preemptive legal challenge aimed to halt the bill’s progress and prevent it from becoming law, reflecting the deep concerns about its potential impact on the rights and freedoms of individuals in Ghana.
The Supreme Court, however, remained steadfast in its interpretation of the law, dismissing all of Dela Sky’s claims. The court’s rationale centered on the principle that judicial review is a mechanism designed to scrutinize enacted laws, not bills in their pre-enactment phase. The justices ruled that the petitioners’ arguments, while raising important considerations, were premature and lacked merit in the current context. They emphasized that the proper time for constitutional challenges is after a bill receives presidential assent and becomes a legally binding statute. This procedural requirement ensures that judicial resources are used efficiently and that the courts do not engage in hypothetical assessments of legislation before it becomes law.
This decision effectively clears the path for the controversial bill to proceed through the remaining stages of the legislative process. With the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the legal challenge, the bill is now closer to becoming law, pending presidential assent. The ruling has underscored the importance of adhering to established legal procedures and the principle of separation of powers, reinforcing the distinct roles of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary in the lawmaking process. The decision also highlights the complexities surrounding the intersection of human rights, public morality, and legal processes in Ghana.
The implications of this ruling are significant, both legally and socially. The Supreme Court’s decision affirms the principle of parliamentary supremacy in the legislative process, subject to ultimate constitutional review post-enactment. It also underscores the importance of respecting the established legal framework for challenging legislation. While the petitioners’ concerns regarding the bill’s potential impact on human rights remain a subject of ongoing public debate, the court’s decision clarifies the appropriate legal avenue for addressing such concerns. The focus now shifts back to the legislature and the executive as the bill continues its journey through the final stages of the legislative process.
