The Supreme Court has postponed Richard Sky’s application seeking to declare the anti-LGBTQ+ bill, also known as the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, null and void, without a specified date for resumption.

The adjournment, as ruled by the Chief Justice, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, is to enable counsel for the plaintiff to file a new motion paper with supporting affidavit and statement of case.

Furthermore, the court granted the applicant time to amend paragraphs five and seven of his application, as suggested by Thaddeus Sory, Counsel for the first defendant, to align with his reliefs.

As such, paragraph five of the applicant’s writ is seeking an order restraining the Speaker of Parliament and the Clerk to Parliament from presenting The Human and Sexual Values Bill, 2024 to the President of the Republic for his assent.

Paragraph seven of the application also seeks an injunction barring any attempts to enforce the provisions of The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bil 2024, particularly those criminalizing same-sex relationships and related advocacy efforts.

The Chief Justice in her ruling, upheld the suggestion of the counsel for the first defendant and adjourned the amendment sine die.

“By listening to all the counsels, the court agrees with the suggestion of counsel for the first defendant and orders the plaintiff applicant to file a fresh motion paper with supporting affidavit and statement of case. The plaintiff is also given leave to address any matters of fact and issues of law in the new process”.
Justice Gertrude Torkornoo

Moreover, the Chief Justice extended the deadline for plaintiff applicant, Richard Dela Sky, to file the revised process to May 17, 2024, a week longer than the initial May 9, 2024, deadline.

Furthermore, the Chief Justice granted the defendants’ counsel a seven-day window to file any responses or motions after being served with the plaintiff’s revised process.

Chief Justice Laments Use Of Intemperate Language By Counsels

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court expressed worry about the choice of words used by parties in the suits challenging the constitutionality of the Human and Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.

The five-member Supreme Court panel, led by Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, expressed concern over the language used by both the plaintiff and the Speaker of Parliament’s legal team, urging caution in their choice of words.

As such, the Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo described the words used by both parties as “inappropriate and scandalous”.

Buttressing her point, Justice Torkornoo cited the description of the private members in one of the plaintiff’s processes simply as “these persons.”

She also cited the use of “despicable” and “desecration” in processes filed by lawyers of the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin.

As such, the Chief Justice urged the parties to employ courteous language in their processes while giving lawyers for the Speaker of Parliament the chance to change the wording of their affidavit in opposition.

The motion filed by Richard Sky outlines several reliefs sought, each grounded in constitutional provisions and fundamental rights.

Among other demands Richard Sky’s motion seeks declarations that parliament’s passage of the bill violated several constitutional articles, thereby rendering the legislation null, void, and unenforceable, and seeking to have it struck down in its entirety

Moreover, the motion challenges the Speaker of Parliament’s decision to allow the passage of the bill, alleging a contravention of constitutional provisions regarding the imposition of charges on public funds and the authority of Parliament.

Furthermore, the motion not only challenges the bill’s passage on legal grounds but also alleges that Parliament failed to meet the necessary quorum requirements, thereby exacerbating concerns about procedural irregularities.”

A crucial element of the motion is the request for a restraining injunction, barring the Speaker and Clerk of Parliament from forwarding the bill to the President for signature, thereby halting its enactment into law.

The motion also seeks to prevent the President from assenting to the bill, citing concerns over its potential impacts on individual freedoms and rights.