Sam Nartey George, Member of Parliament for Ningo-Prampram and a leading advocate for the Anti-LGBTQ+ Bill, has welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss Richard Dela Sky’s lawsuit challenging the bill.
The Supreme Court ruled earlier today, 18th December 2024, that since the bill has not yet been signed into law, it remains a proposed legislation, and therefore, the court cannot issue a pronouncement on it.
Reinforcing the court’s position, Sam George stressed that this has always been the stance of the bill’s proponents — that a court cannot rule on a bill still under consideration.
He maintained that the ruling serves as vindication for the advocates of the bill.
“Justice the delayed is justice denied. I mean, this has travelled for almost 10 months in the courts. Even though the the the hurdles have been taken off now, we would have loved that this would have been dispelled expeditiously.
“And it’s it’s once again an opportunity for us to call on the judiciary to do its job expeditiously. I expect that the the speaker would would immediately, send the bill, if it has not been sent already, to presidency [this week]”.
Sam Nartey George
He further expressed hope that the President would comply with Article 106 of the Constitution by either assenting to the bill or providing reasons for his refusal to do so. “And then the process has to continue”.
Commenting on the level of interest shown by the current administration in passing the bill into law, the lawmaker noted that, unfortunately, he could not speak on behalf of the administration.
However, he emphasized that the president still has three weeks left in office, which is more than sufficient time to act.
Sam George pointed out that, according to the Constitution, the president is required to either sign the bill into law or provide reasons for his refusal within seven days of receiving it. “So if it [the bill] gets to him next week, we’ll have more than enough time to sign it into law”.
Prof. Manuh Criticizes Supreme Court Ruling on Bill
Meanwhile, Prof. Takyiwaa Manuh, a human rights activist, expressed her disappointment with the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the case against the anti-LGBTQ+ bill.
Contrary to the growing perception that the dismissal signifies the end of the challenge against the bill, Prof. Manuh maintained that the fight is far from over.
Prof. Manuh argued that enacting laws to criminalize LGBTQ+ individuals essentially signals to the public that intolerance should be codified into national law.
“That is a dangerous way to go because the next time they might say that they don’t want barely men like you. And because majoritarian rule in a democracy does not mean just the wishes of the majority.
“It is also about protecting minorities. So the fact that you do not want an LGBT person as your neighbor does not mean that you’re going to send somebody to jail just because the person says that they are gay or lesbian, and then we must pay for their upkeep. No. That is not right”.
Prof. Takyiwaa Manuh
She argued that adopting the rigid stance that the fight against the anti-LGBTQ+ bill is futile would, in essence, be legitimizing tyranny, dictatorship, and similar oppressive systems.
Citing a recent example from Kenya, she highlighted how the Kenyan Supreme Court ruled in favor of the registration of LGBTQ+ organizations.
Prof. Manuh indicated that despite the existence of a provision similar to Ghana’s Section 104 of the Criminal Offenses Act, the court upheld the principle of freedom of association, affirming that LGBTQ+ groups had the right to be legally registered.
This, she stressed, demonstrates that even in contexts where homosexuality is criminalized, fundamental human rights, such as the right to associate, must still be respected. “They [LGBTQ community] are not compelling anybody to join them”.
READ ALSO: Funke Akindele Proudly Showers Nancy Isime With Heartfelt Prayers
