Sponsors of the Anti-LGBTQ bill have announced plans to demonstrate against the Chief Justice on August 21, 2024, over what they perceive as delays in the process of transmitting the bill to the President.

The Supreme Court has deferred its ruling on the injunction application by Dr. Amanda Odoi and journalist Richard Sky regarding the transmission of the Anti-LGBTQ bill to the President, and will deliver its ruling on the same day as the final judgment.

The lead sponsor of the Anti-LGBTQ bill, Samuel Nartey George, along with some minority members, paid a courtesy call on the National Chief Imam and the Acting President of the Osu Traditional Council ahead of the demonstration to ensure the bill is forwarded to the President for his assent.

"We want to do a peaceful march on the 21st of August to the Chief Justice. Because right now we've got the president that's holding it is the Chief Justice. She's the one who is preventing parliament from sending it to the President. So we don't have a problem with the President. We don't have a problem with the Speaker. Our problem is the Chief Justice," Sam George told journalists on Wednesday.

On July 17, the 5-member Supreme panel chaired by the Chief Justice in deferring its ruling, indicated that it would give the decision in the injunction application and the substantive application together in an expedited trial.

The panel, at the application hearing stage comprised Justice Mariama Owusu, Justice Prof Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, Justice Ernest Gaewu, and Justice Yaw Darko Asare.

In the first case titled Dr Amanda Odoi vs. the Speaker and Attorney General, Lawyer for the applicant Ernest Arko, argued that both the Speaker and the Clerk to Parliament should be restrained by the Apex Court until after the determination of the substantive matter.

• Read also: Supreme Court defers ruling on injunction against transmission of anti-gay bill

He contended that irreparable damage and harm would be inflicted on the applicant if the interlocutory injunction is not granted, while the Speaker would not suffer if it is refused.

The Plaintiff, who is seeking the apex court to declare the bill null and void, also argues that the passage of the bill violates provisions of the 1992 Constitution particularly Article 33(5) as well as Articles 12(1) and (2), 15(1), 17(1) and (2), 18(2), and 21(1) (a) (b) (d) and (e).

Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame indicated that the bill should not have been entertained in Parliament in the first place.

His contention was that it was in violation of Article 108 of the 1992 constitution which states that Parliament shall not, unless the bill is introduced or the motion is introduced by, or on behalf of, the President: proceed upon a bill, including an amendment to a bill, that, in the opinion of the person presiding, makes provision for any of the following; the imposition of taxation or the alteration of taxation otherwise than by reduction; the imposition of a charge on the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana or the alteration of any such charge otherwise than by reduction; or the payment, issue, or withdrawal from the Consolidated Fund or other public funds of Ghana of any money not charged on the Consolidated Fund or any increase in the amount of that payment, issue, or withdrawal.

He opined that, “what the (Supreme) Court ought to look at in granting an application for interlocutory injunction is whether substantial questions of law have been raised by the plaintiff.” To him, the conditions precedent for entertaining the bill in parliament was not met, and anything done about the bill should be declared a nullity.

In opposing the application, lawyer for the Speaker, Thaddeus Sory, argued that no violation would be inflicted on the applicant if the request is refused. He said the application is a repetition of what had been put before the court earlier by the applicant, and the court should not place any weight on such an application. He contends that process hasn’t ended, and thus injuncting parliament from transmitting the bill to parliament would be usurping the powers of the legislature.

In the case of broadcaster and lawyer, Richard Dela Sky, his counsel, Paa Kwesi Abaidoo, pointed to the absence of fiscal impact analysis, which formed the basis for the passage of the bill.

Among the reliefs sought in Richard Sky’s writ is an order to restrain the Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024, to the President for his assent.

The plaintiff is also seeking an order to restrain the President from assenting to The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024, arguing that such action would directly contravene the constitutional safeguards protecting the liberties and rights of Ghanaians.

Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame argued that the bill ought to be stayed until the final determination of the substantive suit.