Supreme Court Dismisses Review Application Against Anti-Gay Bill Ruling

The Supreme Court has struck out a review application challenging its ruling on the constitutionality of Parliament’s passage of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly known as the anti-gay bill.

The application was filed by journalist and lawyer Richard Sky but was withdrawn by his legal representative, Paa Kwasi Abaidoo, when the case was called on Monday, February 26. As a result, the nine-member review panel, led by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, dismissed the case.

Concerns Over Applicant’s Absence

Despite the withdrawal, the court expressed dissatisfaction with Sky’s absence during the proceedings.

Chief State Attorney Sylvia Adisu suggested that costs should be awarded against the applicant, while Justice Prof. Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu questioned whether it was justifiable for Sky to summon nine Supreme Court Justices only to withdraw the case.

Justice Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu also advocated imposing costs, arguing that, as a lawyer, Sky should have personally appeared before the court. However, Justices Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi and Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu opposed the idea, emphasizing that the case was a public interest matter, making cost imposition unnecessary.

Before striking out the case, the presiding judge reiterated the court’s disappointment over Sky’s absence.

Background of the Controversial Bill

Parliament passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill on February 28, 2024. The bipartisan private member’s bill, if signed into law by the President, will impose prison sentences ranging from three to five years for individuals who engage in or promote homosexual activities. It also criminalizes pro-LGBTQ+ advocacy and penalizes organizations or individuals that provide funding for such activities.

Legal Challenge and Supreme Court Ruling

Richard Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi separately challenged the bill’s passage in the Supreme Court, arguing that it violated Article 108 of the 1992 Constitution and Act 921. They contended that, as a private member’s bill, it should not impose financial obligations on the state, given that convicted individuals could be incarcerated at the government’s expense.

However, on December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the suits failed to properly invoke its jurisdiction. The court also held that, since the bill had not yet been enacted into law, the legal challenges were premature.

It was this decision that Sky sought to have reviewed but ultimately withdrew.